# Talk:The Birth of a Nation

I am posting this text, which, although it is very complete, well referenced and written, has some minor problems that need to be corrected. First, there are passages without references, this is most noticeable in the sections "Consequences", "White House showing", "New opening titles on re-release", "Accolades" and "In popular culture". Second, the "Plot" section should not have a reference by default since the source is in the film itself, but what I don't understand is why there is one in the second paragraph and in the rest there is none, in this case either a reference should be put in the whole section or not at all, and third and last, reference 40 of the New York Times does have an elence for it to be added. For the moment I will not do a GAR because the article is very complete but even so these errors should be corrected. So I call @MagicatthemovieS: who was the one who nominated the article to review it. 2801:1CA:E:1411:DD57:CBA6:D356:E047 (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

A month has passed and the problems have not been resolved, as it says they are easily solvable but no one has been interested. Please call @MagicatthemovieS: again to solve the problems. 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
--This article could be improved by doing a better job of centering the essential reality of the film -- it is a racist propaganda movie. To start with a matter of fact first paragraph and then follow with a paragraph lauding its technical virtuosity -- BEFORE acknowledging its fundamental and purposeful racism -- is a dereliction. Finally introducing its racism in the third paragraph by euphemistically calling it "controversial" is a similar exercise in obliqueness that tones down a harsher actuality. The article also fails to fully acknowledge the film's overt glorification of lynching -- and fails to even mention lynching (a central theme/component of the film's white supremacist ethos) in the introductory paragraphs.
My solution to these problems: 
• The phrase "racist propaganda film" should be included in the first sentence of the article. 
• A clearer, more precise description of the film's racism and politics should be included in the third paragraph. One way to do that would be include this quote from from Ellen C. Scott, an associate professor at UCLA's School of Theater, Film & Television https://www.tft.ucla.edu/faculty/ellen-c-scott/ and author of the 2015 book Cinema Civil Rights: “The film is one of the most racist films ever made. Maybe the most racist film ever made. The politics of the film was essentially to say certain black people are worthy of being lynched." via https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20150206-the-most-racist-movie-ever-made  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:4BC6:14F8:C468:90C2:A39:B4FB (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC) 

Indeed. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
" One way to do that would be include this quote from from Ellen C. Scott" This is against the policy for leads in Wikipedia. The leads have to summarize an article's contents, and not to have unique materials or citations of their own. If you want to add Scott's or anyone else's assessments to the article, then place them in the body of the article. And to be honest, the lead already has too much emphasis on the film's supposedly shocking racism. Except that it was never shocking or unexpected. It is a literary adaptation of a work by Thomas Dixon Jr., and the writer is rather notorious for his politics. As for the glorification of the Ku Klux Klan, Dixon was a nephew of the Klansman Leroy McAfee and the novel was dedicated to "Colonel Leroy McAfee, Grand Titan of the invisible Empire of the Ku Klux Klan". I suspect that most of the former lands of the Confederate States of America had their own hero cults dedicated to Confederate veterans, Klansmen, and Redeemers during and shortly after World War I. Dimadick (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
The article has always been vulnerable to POV pushing. The racism is just a small part of its legacy—and not the most important aspect—but occasionally you get editors who want to amplify that for whatever reason. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?! "THE RACISM IS JUST A SMALL PART"!?! YIKES! Espngeek (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I have been browsing many of the titles listed as references. Which ones, precisely, indicate that "racism is just a small part of the legacy" of this film? (Also, in my searches, I found the following reference on JSTOR, which is not listed here, but probably should be, having been published in WEB Du Bois' journal: Racist Ideology and Black Abnormality in the Birth of a Nation Author(s): Brian Gallagher Source: Phylon (1960-), Vol. 43, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 1982), pp. 68-76.) The article moreover does not include Du Bois' published, contemporaneous comments on the film, nor his letters denouncing the film to the NAACP. (Although I struggle to find clear references.)  Notably, the article cites Dixon's own defense of his racism at length. This strikes me as very non-neutral. Compare this article to Triumph of the Will, which identifies it as a Nazi propaganda film in the first sentence. Tito Omburo (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
"Triumph of the Will, which identifies it as a Nazi propaganda film in the first sentence" Read below the first sentence. Triumph is praised as "one of the greatest propaganda films in history", with the modern German courts classifying it as Nazi propaganda. And it was never intended to be anything else. It provides a glorified view of the Nuremberg rallies and the Nazi Party, which funded the film in the first place. The film was commissioned by the then-party leader Adolf Hitler. The Birth was not funded by the then-long defunct Ku Klux Klan, nor was it affiliated with any particular political organization of the 1910s. Compare the film to the American propaganda during World War II, when the propaganda efforts were largely orchestrated by the United States Office of War Information. Dimadick (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't really feel qualified to edit this article, but feel that there is a genuine NPOV issue.  Therefore I have raised this in the thread Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#The_Birth_of_a_Nation.  Tito Omburo (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
What exactly is non-neutral about it? The article does not shy away from covering its racist legacy. Are you advocating for Wikipedia describing it as a "racist propaganda film"? That strikes me as extremely non-neutral. It is not remembered because it was a racist movie, its racism is remembered because TBOAN endures due to how it transformed the medium. D. W. Griffith is not described as the "father of film" for nothing. The structure of the article mirrors Britannica's which strikes me as a pretty good litmus test for getting the balance right. Betty Logan (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it is a racist propaganda film. Which sources in the article contest this? Perhaps you would like to compare to the NPOV treatment at Triumph of the Will. Will you please state for the record that this was not a Nazi propaganda film? Tito Omburo (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Describing it as "racist propaganda film" does not comply with MOS:FILMLEAD. The American Film Insititute characterizes it as a civil-war/historical drama. Ditto Rotten Tomatoes. IMDB goes with something similar. The weight of sources does not go with "racist propaganda film". Triumph of the Will is not an "apples for apples comparison" IMO, because that film was produced by the Nazis and glorified a Nazi rally. The neutral tone of the article has to come from the objective balancing of reliable secondary source about TBOAN, not from subjective comparisons to an article about an entirely different film with different antecedents and objectives. The structure and tone of the Britannica entry (i.e. a respected anycylopedia) is a solid template to work from. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
So, MOS:FILMLEAD only applies to white supremacist propaganda films but not Nazi propaganda films? Interesting. I did not find that caveat in the guideline. Perhaps Triumph of the Will should not be characterized in the first sentence as a "Nazi propaganda film". Do you agree? (Your citations of website sources do not serve to counter the scholarly reliable sources cited in the article. Again, please identify for me such sources that do not highlight the racism of the film, please. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
The guideline applies to all film articles, including Nazi propaganda. AFI doesn't have an entry for it, but both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB describe it as a "historical documentary", which strikes me as a more neutral term than "Nazi propaganda". However, Triumph of the Will is more overtly propaganda than TBOAN. While I don't dispute that the TBOAN served as a propaganda tool for the KKK (which is covered in the article), it was not made as propaganda and secondary coverage does not regularly present it in that way. Betty Logan (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
(You are "citing" IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, as if they represented scholarly consensus on a subject, a habit you apparently need curing of.)  I am curious, does this edit comply with WP:FILMLEAD?  I think it does.  If not, feel free to add details.  Tito Omburo (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Well why don't you go and ask the film project instead of edit-warring? Betty Logan (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, why are you coming at me so aggressively? This seems like a good-faith dispute about how to comply with WP:NPOV on one of the most racist films in history.  I have added several sources, although none should be necessary given the sources already listed. Also, I don't know which "film project" you refer to.  Could you please post a neutral summary of our dispute there and ping me a link? Tito Omburo (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

We must adhere to Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View. While it is a fact that the film is widely considered racist propaganda, the article itself, particularly the lead sentence, should reflect what reliable sources say about the film, not present a single viewpoint as an absolute, un-nuanced fact. A more encyclopedic approach would be to state that the film is widely regarded as one of the most controversial and racist films ever made, and to explain its propagandistic nature and themes, including its glorification of the Ku Klux Klan and lynching. This approach avoids violating NPOV while still being direct and accurate. The addition of "white supremacist propaganda" in the opening sentence is not neutral and the emphasis on it's placement would 'appear' to be coming from a non-neutral space more concerned with promoting this view point, which will not be universal, than presenting the article content, which is the purpose of the lead and main reason for immediate identification in the opening sentence. The comparison to Triumph of the Will is not a valid argument for changing this article. Each article on Wikipedia must stand on its own and follow the guidelines. We must not violate NPOV in one article simply because another may be seen as doing so. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Point taken. I have edited the lede to reflect this advice, and eliminated some redundancies. Tito Omburo (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Came here from WT:FILM. I'll state upfront that I have not surveyed the literature on the film before weighing in here, but I think I have a decent sense of the appropriate balance here as a result of the coverage I have encountered over the years (and a quick look at the entry for the film in Encyclopædia Britannica appears to bear this out). I am inclined to agree that the pre-August 2025 version of the WP:LEAD is unsatisfactory. In particular, I agree that not mentioning the racial politics of the film until the third paragraph is burying the lede somewhat and that introducing the racial politics as "controversial" is, in essence, a euphemism—this may have been controversial a century ago, but nowadays the consensus seems overwhelmingly to be that the film is straightforwardly (and heavily) racist. That being said, describing the film as "white supremacist propaganda" in WP:WikiVoice in the very first sentence is a pretty clear case of overcorrection to me. I think it is reasonable to mention this aspect in the first paragraph. I might note that the Britannica entry has a lead consisting of a single paragraph, which calls the film racist in the equivalent of WP:WikiVoice ([the film] has long been hailed for its technical and dramatic innovations. However, it has also been condemned for the racism inherent in the script and its positive portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), which experienced a major revival after the movie's release.). It does not seem like a terribly tall order to introduce both parts of the complicated legacy—i.e. both the positive aspect in terms of filmmaking and the negative aspect in terms of racism—in the first paragraph, while leaving the details for later paragraphs. As another example, the film's entry in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (though by no means a top-quality source) introduces this duality in the very first sentence (Simultaneously one of the most revered and most reviled films ever made, D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation is important for the very reasons that prompt both of those divergent reactions.). TompaDompa (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I would oppose including any one person's quote on it in the lead, however we cover it. They are all WP:UNDUE in the lead unless widely recognized, which they do not appear to be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
That the film is one of the most racist films in history is well-attested by sources. Perhaps it could be summarized in Wikipedia voice? Tito Omburo (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I feel like your previous edit was fine, handpicked quotes again veers into non-neutral because are we then omitting the opposing voice? I think opening the article with "widely regarded as the most racist" is pretty sufficient. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there is really much of an opposing voice to "The film The Birth of a Nation is racist". That being said, I agree that we should cool it with the quotes. At present, half of the first paragraph is devoted to the film being racist, which is excessive. TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I am fine with describing the film as racist or some variation. Handpicking quotes seems like editorializing unless the specific quote is remarked upon by several sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Here from WP:NPOV/N. The recent edits to the lead are non-neutral and fail WP:IMPARTIAL. The article already covered the film's relation to racism in depth, and this comes across as an attempt to brand the article rather than to write in an encyclopedic style. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
The lede is non-neutral because it accurately summarizes the sources in the article? As I see it, this is a problem of WP:WEIGHT. How do you weight the various scholarly sources in the article? From my, admittedly unexpert browsing through the sources, the racism of the film is something that is universally acknowledged.  Please feel free to contradict me, but this appears to be a consensus judgment. You are, of course, welcome to prseent reliable sources that contradict this apparent consensus. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I can see where Thebiguglyalien is coming from, half the opening paragraph is focused exclusively on describing the ways in which it is racist. A neutral description would typically focus on presenting factual information about the film without evaluative language in the opening. It would state who directed and starred in the film, when it was released, and its historical significance from both a technical and cultural standpoint. It would then present the criticisms and controversies in a separate section or later in the text, allowing the reader to understand the context and various viewpoints, typically under the third and/or fourth paragraph where discussing its reception, influence, and legacy. While the opening has been toned down, it's still excessively focused on portraying a very specific viewpoint. For example, it being "the first non-serial American 12-reel film ever made" is probably more relevant to the opening than anything after and including "The film portrays African Americans—many played by..." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Here's a concrete suggestion: devote a single sentence in the first paragraph to stating that the film is considered both (1) important in the history of film and (2) racist, and leave the details to later paragraphs. TompaDompa (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
WP:NPOV asserts that we should present information according to due weight in reliable sources.  I have looked at the sources of the article, and the reliable, scholarly sources, overwhelmingly emphasize the racism of the film.  Please present scholarly sources that do not do so.  Tito Omburo (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
@Tito Omburo: Even so, might you entertain the possibility that devoting half of the first paragraph to the film being racist could be excessive, i.e. giving this aspect more weight than is due? TompaDompa (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
As Tompa says, the issue isn't the lack of sources saying it has racist elements, it's the sheer scale of dedication to discussing it in the opening, bearing in mind that this is also brought up in the third paragraph, meaning half the opening is dedicated to this one topic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
As an example of something I believe to be truly neutral:
"The Birth of a Nation is a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith. Adapted from Thomas Dixon Jr.’s 1905 novel and play, The Clansman, the film was co-written by Griffith and Frank E. Woods. It is widely considered a landmark in the development of cinematic technique, noted for its innovative use of camera shots and editing. The film's narrative depicts the American Civil War and Reconstruction era, portraying the Ku Klux Klan as a heroic force. Its release was met with significant controversy due to its highly criticized racial themes."
Or, if you want to be more direct:
"The Birth of a Nation, a 1915 American silent epic drama, was directed by D. W. Griffith and starred Lillian Gish. The film is an adaptation of Thomas Dixon Jr.'s novel and play, The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan. Historically, it is recognized for its pioneering contributions to cinematic language and technique, influencing future filmmakers with its use of sophisticated camera and editing methods. However, the film is also one of the most controversial in American history due to its overtly racist content, which includes demeaning portrayals of African Americans and a positive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan."
Then I'd go into more detail in the third paragraph. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Again, it's a question of WP:WEIGHT.  All of the peer-reviewed history sources in the article (with the exception of certain pro-segregration sources, ironically cited earlier in the article than more modern scholarship - again a WP:WEIGHT problem) emphasize the film's racism.  Not its "innovative use of camera shots and editing", not the "narrative depict[ing] the American Civil War and Reconstruction era".  The overt racism of the film needs to be in the first paragraph, alongside its landmark stature.  It is equally, and more, important.  Scholarship bears this out.  NPOV means we summarize what reliable sources say about a topic, not just that we should be "inoffensive" and give a positive spin to the subject of the article.  Tito Omburo (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the input.  I think this comes pretty close to satisfying all objections.  We balance both film details and historical details, both of which are given equal weight in the first paragraph.  Possibly the second and third paragraph could be swapped.  Thoughts?  Tito Omburo (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment I have largely tried to stay of this dispute until it reaches some kind of resolution that can be implemented, and I think we are approaching that stage with DWB's suggestions:
Proposal 1: "The Birth of a Nation is a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith. Adapted from Thomas Dixon Jr.’s 1905 novel and play, The Clansman, the film was co-written by Griffith and Frank E. Woods. It is widely considered a landmark in the development of cinematic technique, noted for its innovative use of camera shots and editing. The film's narrative depicts the American Civil War and Reconstruction era, portraying the Ku Klux Klan as a heroic force. Its release was met with significant controversy due to its highly criticized racial themes."
Proposal 2: "The Birth of a Nation, a 1915 American silent epic drama, was directed by D. W. Griffith and starred Lillian Gish. The film is an adaptation of Thomas Dixon Jr.'s novel and play, The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan. Historically, it is recognized for its pioneering contributions to cinematic language and technique, influencing future filmmakers with its use of sophisticated camera and editing methods. However, the film is also one of the most controversial in American history due to its overtly racist content, which includes demeaning portrayals of African Americans and a positive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan." 
I am fine with both of them, but the second is more frank and therefore probably better. I still object to characterising the film as "white supremacist propaganda", because this gives too much prominence to a minority label. I do not have an issue with highlighting its white supremacist themes, and incidentally it was me who  introduced that into the article. I completely dispute the fact that the WP:WEIGHT] of sources is behind describing it as "propaganda". While I accept it was a propaganda tool for KKK, that was not its purpose for creation and is not reflected in the majority of sources. I would like to get more thoughts on the wording proposed by DWB. Once we agree on the wording here we can then implement it in the main article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I removed "propaganda".  Is this a suitable compromise?  I reject proposal 1, since the racism of the film is its primary feature in the majority of reliable scholarly sources, and "racial themes" is a notorious euphemism for the sort of gutter racism embodied here.  Personally, I think my version more accurately reflects WP:DUE by putting the films racism on equal footing with its technical accomplishments.  Again, I would be happy to be contradicted by sources that cut the other way. Tito Omburo (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
The full title of The Clansman is not suppressed. The full title of the novel has always been in the article as far as I can recall. I imagine it's because it's a long title it is given once and then abbreviated. You would have to ask MagicatthemovieS, as he wrote most the bulk of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Tito Omburo above that "highly criticized racial themes" seems euphemistic (and not reflective of the sources, at least not the ones I've seen). I believe "overtly racist content" reflects the modern consensus well without being excessively WP:EMPHATIC in its phrasing. Staying with Proposal 2: I think introducing the film history part of the legacy with "Historically" is good, but I think we should avoid introducing the racism part with "However" and I don't think we should describe the film as controversial in relation to the racism—both come off to me as downplaying the modern consensus on the film's racism (as I understand it). I think "innovative use of camera shots and editing" in Proposal 1 is better than "pioneering contributions to cinematic language and technique" in Proposal 2. I have no strong opinions on the first two sentences. I might write something like:The Birth of a Nation is a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith and starring Lillian Gish. It is an adaptation of Thomas Dixon Jr.'s 1905 novel and play The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan, co-written by Griffith and Frank E. Woods and produced by Griffith and Harry Aitken. Historically, it is recognized for its role in the development of cinematic technique, with innovative use of camera shots and editing. Culturally, it is noted for its overtly racist content, which includes demeaning portrayals of African Americans and a positive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan. I suppose this might be considered "Proposal 3". TompaDompa (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I can get behind this version. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Ditto. Tito Omburo (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm ok with this. Betty Logan (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I have implemented Proposal 3, seeing as it seems to be acceptable to the majority of participants here. TompaDompa (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I would also suggest removing "The black characters (many of whom are played by white actors in blackface) are portrayed as unintelligent and sexually aggressive toward white women. The Ku Klux Klan is portrayed as a heroic force that protects white women and maintains white supremacy.[5][6]" from the second paragraph, as it is repeating the end of the now current first paragraph and, IMO, going into too much detail about something that should be covered in the body text.
In addition to this, I recommend merging the current third paragraph into the current second paragraph, and in the current fourth paragraph, add after "In response to the film's depictions of black people" something along the lines of ", including the use of blackface and negative stereotypes,". The removal of the Ku Klux Klan mention in the current second paragraph is covered by the content of the current fifth paragraph. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, although I don't exactly follow the play-by-play. Interested to see this version of the lede. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Tito, what was the point in us agreeing on the above, if you've gone and changed it to again and further increased the commentary on racism. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)  

Please check my most recent edit.  I was attempting to accommodate a different objection, that the "cultural/historical" distinction is not really NPOV. I think I have more or less implemented your suggestion, modulo details. Please check my latest edit, which I think preserves the spirit of your suggested version, while also situating the film's racism front-and-center in a neutral way. Tito Omburo (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
The Birth of a Nation is a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith and starring Lillian Gish. It is an adaptation of Thomas Dixon Jr.'s 1905 novel and play The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan, co-written by Griffith and Frank E. Woods and produced by Griffith and Harry Aitken. Historically, it is recognized for its role in the development of cinematic technique, with innovative use of camera shots and editing. Culturally, it is noted for its overtly racist content, which includes demeaning portrayals of African Americans and a positive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan.

The film's plot, a blend of historical events and fiction, chronicles the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the relationship between two families—the pro-Union Stonemans and the pro-Confederacy Camerons—during the Civil War and Reconstruction eras. The Birth of a Nation was the first non-serial American 12-reel film and was screened inside the White House for President Woodrow Wilson. It also helped to pioneer closeups and fadeouts, and it includes a carefully staged battle sequence with hundreds of extras made to look like thousands. 

Upon its release, the film was a massive commercial success, grossing more than any previous motion picture and remaining one of the highest-grossing films ever made when adjusted for inflation. This success was both a consequence and a contributor to the prevailing racial segregation in the United States. In response to its content and its depictions of black people—including the use of white actors in blackface and negative stereotypes—African Americans across the U.S. organized protests. The NAACP and black leaders in various localities spearheaded campaigns to have the film banned, citing its potential to inflame racial tensions and incite violence. As a result, its release was denied in several cities and the state of Ohio. Griffith's indignation at these censorship efforts motivated him to produce his next film, Intolerance (1916).

The film has been acknowledged as an inspiration for the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the early 20th century, which occurred shortly after its release. In 1992, the Library of Congress selected the film for preservation in the National Film Registry, deeming it "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.

My thinking is something along these lines. I've removed the references for this as all claims in the lead should be sourced in the body text unless particularly controversial. This tidies it up to follow the lede guidelines more while still making the main points. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I would be fine with this. It would make the lead a bit tighter. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment In my experience, this film's extreme racism is the primary thing people talk about it these days. Not mentioning it in the lead would be absurd.★Trekker (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
To be clear, noone is saying not to mention the racism, it's the scale/weight of discussion in relation to everything else. It's still an article about a film at the end of the day and discussion of it's content makes up part of that, not all of it. As per a previous comment, earlier versions of the lead were about fully half related to discussion of racism when it's meant to be an overall summary of the article content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to the party, but the historically/culturally dichotomy is a little strange, considering film is part of culture and the fallout of the film's racism (revival of the Klan) is very historically significant. How about something like "The film is recognized for its role in the development of cinematic technique, with innovative use of camera shots and editing. It has also been widely criticized for its overtly racist content, which includes demeaning portrayals of African Americans and a positive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan." Does that seem okay? Ladtrack (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
That's a good point and, if anything "historically/culturally" cuts the other way.  Looking at this version, however, "widely criticized" seems more weaselly than the current revision. Tito Omburo (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The part that I replaced with "widely criticized" just says "noted", which suggests nothing about how the film's racism was actually received. This version still says it is racist in Wikivoice, but also that people found that to be a bad thing. We can't say "The film's racism is bad", we're not allowed to do that. The furthest we can go is to say that others have said that, which is what I did here. Ladtrack (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The "criticism" isn't why the film's racism is bad. The film led to the revival of the KKK, demonstrations against it, and violence. Criticism makes it sound like it was debated in the pages of broadsheets. Tito Omburo (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I think we're having a miscommunication issue here, but it's fine, I don't feel that strongly about  this. Would "The film is recognized for its role in the development of cinematic technique, with innovative use of camera shots and editing. It has also been noted for its overtly racist content, which includes demeaning portrayals of African Americans and a positive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan." make you happy? Ladtrack (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry if that is how it seems.  I think "criticism" is too rarefied.  I would prefer a division between the technical importance of the film, and its historical and cultural context.  I have attempted to do this in my most recent edit, while incorporated the previous consensus.  Tito Omburo (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Thoughts on this revert? It seems a further deviation from consensus. @Betty Logan: Tito Omburo (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the wording you implemented. I have implemented the wording proposed by Ladtrack. If you do not agree with it then feel free to revert me, but the wording you installed has not even been discussed, let alone obtained a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
You are welcome to discuss this wording. I have reverted your edit that implemented non-consensus revision. My proposal, which attempts to incorporate both DW's view and the one you just attempted to impose by fiat is as follows:
The Birth of a Nation is a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith and starring Lillian Gish. It is an adaptation of Thomas Dixon Jr.'s 1905 novel and play The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan, co-written by Griffith and Frank E. Woods and produced by Griffith and Harry Aitken. It is noted for its overtly racist content, which includes demeaning portrayals of African Americans and a positive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan, and the role it played culturally in anti-Black racism in 20th century America. As a technical achievement, it is recognized for its role in the development of cinematic technique, with innovative use of camera shots and editing.
The plot, part fiction and part history, chronicles the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth and the relationship of two families in the Civil War and Reconstruction eras over the course of several years—the pro-Union (Northern) Stonemans and the pro-Confederacy (Southern) Camerons. It was the first non-serial American 12-reel film ever made. It was originally shown in two parts separated by an intermission, and it was the first American-made film to have a musical score for an orchestra. It helped to pioneer closeups and fadeouts, and it includes a carefully staged battle sequence with hundreds of extras made to look like thousands. It came with a 13-page Souvenir Program. It was the first motion picture to be screened inside the White House, viewed there by President Woodrow Wilson, his family, and members of his cabinet.
Popular among white audiences nationwide upon its release, the film's success was both a consequence of and a contributor to racial segregation throughout the U.S. The black characters (many of whom are played by white actors in blackface) are portrayed as unintelligent and sexually aggressive toward white women. In response, African Americans across the U.S. organized and protested. In Boston and other localities, black leaders and the NAACP spearheaded an unsuccessful campaign to have it banned on the basis that it inflamed racial tensions and could incite violence. It was also denied release in the state of Ohio and the cities of Chicago, Denver, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Minneapolis. Griffith's indignation at efforts to censor or ban the film motivated him to produce Intolerance the following year. 
The Birth of a Nation was a massive commercial success across the nation—grossing far more than any previous motion picture—and it profoundly influenced both the film industry and American culture. Adjusted for inflation, the film remains one of the highest-grossing films ever made.  It has been acknowledged as an inspiration for the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan, which took place only a few months after its release. In 1992, the Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry.

Please dicuss this revision, thanks. Tito Omburo (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Proposal I endorse the following wording proposed by Ladtrack: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Birth_of_a_Nation&diff=prev&oldid=1306816806. Thoughts Darkwarriorblake and TompaDompa. It would be nice to get the opening paragraph wrapped up. Betty Logan (talk) Betty Logan (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Why is this better than the version above?  Tito Omburo (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
We have had this discussion. Everyone—including you—agreed on TompaDompa's proposal #3 above. I doubt anyone has the desire to re-litigate this whole discussion. Ladtrack proposed some slight wording changes, which I agree offer a slight improvement. If you do not agree then I am happy to retain the proposal #3 wording. I am also happy implement the subsequent amendments to the lead suggested by Darkwarriorblake. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am leaving the NPOV tag in place, and also have tagged the dubious distinction between "historical" and "cultural".  Surely its influence on the history of film is "technical", per the above edit, not "historical". Yes? The historical legacy points to the second revival of the KKK, and its cultural legacy to 20th century anti-Black racism. Do you disagree?  Tito Omburo (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Ladtrack suggested sensible alternative wording to address this issue without altering the agreed semantics of the paragraph. You were the one who reverted the fix. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Wrong. At least two editors noted problems with this wording above. Also, I am curious why you think it is understood that the KKK is a white supremacist hate group in the lede paragraph?  It seems, per WP:MTAA, that this should be pointed out.  (Thus, I am a bit agog at this revert. The edit seems pretty uncontroversial, no?)  Tito Omburo (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I was the one who originally added that wording, and it was removed when proposal #3 was agreed by everyone (including you). We reached a consensus on how much WP:WEIGHT the lead should give to the film's racist content. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Can you please justify your most recent revert? Is it not proper to point out that the KKK is a hate group? Maybe you feel that it isn't. Please clarify. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Generally, we try not to overexplain things that aren't the subject of the article if we can avoid it. The Klan is a hate group, and anyone who doesn't know that can click the link we provided in the text and find that out for themselves. It's literally the first sentence of the Ku Klux Klan article. We don't need to retype it here. Ladtrack (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. My understanding of WP:LEAD is that the opening should be written "one level down," i.e. contextualizing terms that may not be familiar to a general or international audience. The phrase "Ku Klux Klan" appears in the title of the source work and is central to the film's content. Per WP:MTAA, articles should avoid assuming cultural familiarity and instead provide minimal context in the lead itself. While the Klan article gives full detail, a brief descriptor ("an American white supremacist hate group") here ensures readers outside the U.S. are not left without essential context. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I posted a change to this article that clarified this myth, but it was reverted and all mention of the film's White House screening was removed. I think this is relevant information that should be included especially given that several news articles have been published with incorrect information. NPR, The New Yorker, and The Conversation all state that this was the first film to be screened at the White House and that's just the first page of Google. I was even taught this during a college media class, which is why I was surprised when I learned it was (technically) wrong. I don't know if reference to Cabiria (the real first film screened on the White House lawn in 1914) is necessary. But removing all mention of the White House Screening seems bad. B-B-B-200 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what "myth" you are trying to correct, but there is a dedicated section detailing the screening. It is unnecessary to add details about Cabiria to the lead as it was not screened inside the White House itself. Betty Logan (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I am opening an RFC regarding which version of the lede should be used for this article. The question is whether the film's overt racism should be foregrounded before its technical innovations, and whether editorial  tags belong in the lede. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)


### Option A (Version 1 – current draft with inline tags)
 The Birth of a Nation is a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith and starring Lillian Gish. It is an adaptation of Thomas Dixon Jr.'s 1905 novel and play The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan, co-written by Griffith and Frank E. Woods and produced by Griffith and Harry Aitken. Historically, it is recognized for its role in the development of cinematic technique. Culturally, it is noted for its overtly racist content, which includes demeaning portrayals of African Americans and a positive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan. 


### Option B (Version 2 – alternative proposal)
 The Birth of a Nation is a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith and starring Lillian Gish. It is an adaptation of Thomas Dixon Jr.'s 1905 novel and play The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan, co-written by Griffith and Frank E. Woods and produced by Griffith and Harry Aitken. It is noted for its overtly racist content, which includes demeaning portrayals of African Americans and a positive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan, and the role it played culturally in anti-Black racism in 20th-century America. As a technical achievement, it is recognized for its role in the development of cinematic technique, with innovative use of camera shots and editing. 


### Option C
 The Birth of a Nation is a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith and starring Lillian Gish. It is an adaptation of Thomas Dixon Jr.'s 1905 novel and play The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan, co-written by Griffith and Frank E. Woods and produced by Griffith and Harry Aitken. The film is recognized for its role in the development of cinematic technique, with innovative use of camera shots and editing. It has also been widely criticized for its overtly racist content, which includes demeaning portrayals of African Americans and a positive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan.


### Option D
Return to the more stable version of that had been in place for years, e.g. This version of 22:34, 5 August 2025, before the tags were added this month and major changes have been made to the WP:LEDE.


### Rationale
Neutrality: Option B removes inline  tags, which are editorial commentary and not appropriate for a lede (see WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD).
Balance: Scholarly sources emphasize both (1) the film’s role in promoting anti-Black racism and (2) its technical achievements. Option B presents both clearly without privileging one over the other.
Weight: By leading with racism and cultural impact, Option B reflects modern academic consensus (see e.g. Donald Bogle, Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, and Bucks; Ed Guerrero, Framing Blackness). Option A risks giving undue prominence to technical aspects (see WP:DUE).
Readability: Option B is straightforward prose. Option A's "Historically... Culturally..." framing is clunky and invites debate within the lede. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)


### Question
Which version should be adopted for the article's lede?
Support Option A (Version 1): Keep current framing, technical first, racism second, with inline (dubious) tags.
Support Option B (Version 2): Adopt proposed wording, racism first, technical second, no inline editorial tags.
Other: Please explain. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Option C added by Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Option D added by David Tornheim (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)


### Comments
Support Option B as nominator. This version is more neutral. Segregating the film's political and social impact under "cultural" while reserving "historical" for its technical innovations reflects an arbitrary and misleading dichotomy. Reliable historiography treats racism, censorship battles, and the Klan's resurgence as core historical consequences of the film, not merely "cultural" artifacts. Option B better aligns with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE by presenting both the film's technical significance and its damaging historical legacy in balanced terms. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Option C. While it is cleaner than Option A, it still privileges the film's technical innovations by placing them first and relegating its racism to something the film "has been criticized for." That framing is outdated and misleading. Modern scholarship treats the film's racial content and its historical role in the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan as central facts, not merely external criticism (see references). By leading with innovation and framing racism as secondary "criticism," Option C risks giving undue weight to film-technical achievement at the expense of its far more consequential political and social impact (contrary to WP:DUE). Option B is better aligned with current historiography and with WP:NPOV. Tito Omburo (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
@Tito Omburo:
Modern scholarship treats the film's racial content and its historical role in the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan as central facts, not merely external criticism (see references).  Which references?  Do you have some quotes that sound more like Option B than Option C?  It might be worth opening a separate section on the talk page to prove this.
FYI.  I'm not opposed to Option B.  But, I am opposed to the maintenance tags and edit-warring, which is why I reverted to the stable version.--David Tornheim (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks.  Part of the NPOV problem is the references.  Notice how the earlier references are largely primary sources, low-quality film resources, and things like autobiographies and retrospectives? It is true that the New Yorker piece from 2022 is cited in the lede, but the first place it appears in the body of the article is way down, in the "criticism" section?  This seems non-neutral.  I'm happy to walk through the references in the article, but it seems to me that a lot of the earlier references in the article are primary sources from 1915, racist sources from the 1960s, or perfunctory nods to modern sources, such that the structure of the article, and especially its lede, do not reflect modern scholarship, as evidenced by peer-reviewed sources in historiography.  Contemporaneous accounts do not reflect modern sources at the time, such as W. E. B. Dubois, nor even the much later article by Andrew Leitner at UNC which was published in the 1940s, which is only referenced in a perfunctory way in a sentence describing Dixon as a white supremacist (an article you are invited to read for yourself and see if the lede of the article appropriately summarizes the film).  The book Stokes, Melvyn (2007). D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation: A History of "The Most Controversial Motion Picture of All Time". New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-804436-9, appears to be cited for relatively uncontroversial film-studies facts, but not for its noting of the film's racism.  Indeed, that book references "racism" 54 times, "racist" 68 times, and "close-up" only six places, most of which describe how the close-ups are used to advance racist tropes ("close-ups of sacred virgins", "Gus, in close-up, the mouth flowing blood", an entire paragraph of how close-ups are used to advance the propaganda narrative. (It does not reference Stokes' *other book* on the topic "In the shadow of the birth of a nation: racism, reception, and resistance".)  The article Franklin, John Hope (Autumn 1979). "The Birth of a Nation: Propaganda as History". Massachusetts Review. 20 (3): 417–434. JSTOR 25088973. is cited many times throughout the article, but the key point of the article is deferred until much later, and it is mostly used for citing uncontroversial historical film-studies type facts.  That strikes me as non-neutral.  The Slate article "Still lying about history" is referenced once, for the statement Through Aitken, Dixon met Griffith.[31]: 421  Like Dixon, Griffith was a Southerner, a fact that Dixon points out;[32]: 295  Griffith's father served as a colonel in the Confederate States Army and, like Dixon, viewed Reconstruction negatively. Griffith believed that a passage from The Clansman where Klansmen ride "to the rescue of persecuted white Southerners" could be adapted into a great cinematic sequence.  That seems like a non-neutral summary of the published source. Isenberg, Nancy; Burnstein, Andrew (February 17, 2011). "Still lying about history". Salon, is only cited in a perfunctory way, while its lede asserts "A century after its release, that controversy is long dead. Film studies professors preface their lectures on the film with emphatic disclaimers about its politics, then teach it anyway because of its multiple breakthroughs in the use of editing, cinematography, and music. No serious critic would disagree with James Baldwin's assertion in The Devil Finds Work that the film is both 'one of the great classics of the American cinema' and 'an elaborate justification for mass murder.' Like Triumph of the Will, it is a technical tour de force and a moral pariah, one that vividly illustrates the racist mindset: violent, paranoid, sexually neurotic, sentimental, and absurd." Notably, the article fails to cite The Devil Finds Work at all (following a general trend of lack of representation of any kind of black-studies, or remotely balancing viewpoint to the explicitly white-supremacist content of the article). The article cites this as a source.  No comment.  It cites very little black history about the film. For example, in my searches, I found the following reference on JSTOR, which is not listed here, but probably should be, having been published in WEB Du Bois' journal: Racist Ideology and Black Abnormality in the Birth of a Nation Author(s): Brian Gallagher Source: Phylon (1960-), Vol. 43, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 1982), pp. 68-76.) The article moreover does not include Du Bois' published, contemporaneous comments on the film, nor his letters denouncing the film to the NAACP. (Although I struggle to find clear references.) Notably, the article cites Dixon's own defense of his racism at length. This strikes me as very non-neutral.  The problem with the article is thus not just with the lede, but to what extent does the lede (and the rest of the article) reflect real scholarship on this topic.  (Seems like this article overall is a case of systemic bias.) Tito Omburo (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you.  I have not had time to review these yet.  I also asked you to provide this information so that others who visit this RfC can use it to help inform their decision. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Support Option C (but happy to stick with Option A): Option A is essentially proposal #3 which was agreed by unanimous consensus in the discussion above, by Tito Omburo, Darkwarriorblake, Tompadompa and myself. Ladtrack expressed concerns about use of the words "Culturally" and "Historically" and suggested a revised version (Option C). It's not really clear to me why Tito Omburo agreed to the Option A and now wants to start re-jigging it after a protracted discussion. Personally I think we are wasting the community's time with this RFC. We had a discussion, reached a unanimous consensus, and now Tito has decided he doesn't like it after all. I would argue that Options A and C are more aligned with how other encyclopedias (such as Encyclopedia Britannica) introduce the film. Tito has consistently made WP:POINTy edits to the lead, essentially trying to prioritize the racism. The article has never shied away from the fact that the film is racist (essentially espousing white supremacy) but it needs to be kept in perspective. There were many racist films made from that period, but they are all but forgotten. The reason TBOAN persists is not because it is racist, but because it profoundly influenced how films are made, and the lead as it is written now reflects that better IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
This is an RfC. I could equally well raise the issue that you do not think it relevant that the Ku Klux Klan is an American anti-Black hate group, per your revert of my edit and my question above, which you still have not answered. Perhaps you think the KKK is not a hate group, and that it is irrelevant to the context of the film. I don't want to draw the obvious extrapolation here, but lets avoid ad hominem attacks please.  Tito Omburo (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I answered that question in the above discussion, but I will repeat it here for convenience. For the sake of disclosure it was me who added this text originally. It was removed when proposal #3 was implemented following unanimous consensus above. I removed it because Tito added it back in unilaterally, despite the fact that we all agreed on a version that excluded this description of the KKK. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Wonderful. Why did you delete this in your last revert? Tito Omburo (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I have restored your wording, assuming your revert was in error. You are free to defend it in response to the question I posed above.  Tito Omburo (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I have explained this to you. Four editors—including you and me—reached a consensus for the lead that removed this wording. You cannot go and unilaterally re-write the lead straight reaching a consensus. If you want to propose restoration of this text then add it your RFC option above. If you make any more edits such as this one which mischaracterise my position I will report you for edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction.  Just so we are clear: you think that characterizing the KKK as a hate group is inappropriate at any point in the lede of an article whose source material is The Clansman: A historical romance of the Ku Klux Klan? Right? Tito Omburo (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Based on what I read in your report of edit-warring and claims here that there was a consensus, I'm inclined to support Option C if it was truly the consensus before the RfC. I was going to ask you for proof it was a consensus, but fear such proof will take far more reading and disagreements than I have patience to read.  If you could provide a diff for each editor that you think proves they supported it, that might convince me rather than reading a lengthy discussion, or if they simply comment in the RfC that was the case.
I may have been premature in reverting to the stable version and supporting that.  Even though I think it is worthwhile to add the racism issue higher up in the article, I thought the edit-warring, "dubious" and NPOV tags were needlessly undermining a very important article that was previously a featured article.  I am a cinephile, so I know a fair amount about the film from documentaries and the stable version isn't bad enough to warrant all those tags or the edit-warring.
TLDR: I wanted to let you know that if I hear enough editors agree with your claim that C was indeed the consensus before the RfC, I am willing to put my support behind C rather than the long-stable version.--David Tornheim (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Option A/Proposal 3 is the version agreed by consensus. The consensus is buried in the discussion above but can be found by doing a text search on "implemented proposal 3". I can always provide diffs of various editors agreeing if necessary, but a basic text search will also reveal the context of the agreement. I agree that the RFC is fundamentally flawed by not including the long-term stable version that persisted for many years. Betty Logan (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional info.  No way I can get behind Option A with the "dubious" tags.  Once I have time to look closer and think about it, I'll reconsider.  This whole thing is such a mess.--David Tornheim (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
The tags were obviously not part of the original consensus version. Tito Omburo added those in, and then convened the RFC to give us a straight choice between the tagged version of Option A and his re-write, Option B. It was designed to railroad impartial editors into selecting Option B. It prejudices the choice, and therefore the RFC should be technically closed IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I did the search on "implemented proposal 3", which confirms the consensus on version A (minus the tags).  That combined with your and TompaDompa's testimony that Tito Omburo added the tags to version A to prejudice the RfC to his version, it all makes sense now:  It is clear this was indeed a malformed RfC; that the consensus version A (minus the tags) can be restored (unless there is another consensus with similar or more support)--I would not oppose it if someone does put it back during this RfC; and, that a major apology from Tito Omburo is in order with promises to cease the disruptive behavior.  I would support staying the proceedings at the edit-war board if such acknowledgement is received.  If I don't see an apology from Tito Omburo soon, I will likely join in asking for some sanction there to prevent further disruption from him.
Should we add an Option E--the consensus version that lacks the tags to offer it to editors to consider, because it seems the most easily justifiable version (to me) based on the process problems, particularly because Tito Omburo already agreed to it, and so that other new editors understand more quickly the mess they are asked to weigh in on?  Option A with the tags just isn't viable and should never have been put in an RfC. Yet, I agree with you and TompaDompa that it is probably better to just close this down and possibly open a new one that is better formed and has some agreement on the question(s) to be be asked before it is opened.--David Tornheim (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Support Option C: While I can see that it is importnat to Tito that The Birth of a Nation's racism and its historical role in the Klan's resurgence are not overlooked,, I do not think Option B achieves the best balance for a film article. Wikipedia's lead sections should reflect both the critical consensus on a film’s social impact and the reasons for its enduring significance in cinema history. Option C strikes me as a more proportionate and encyclopedic compromise. It acknowledges the racism in clear terms, but it also ensures that the film's technical innovations, which are the main reason it is still widely studied in film history courses, are not buried or presented as secondary. To frame the racism first and foremost risks reducing the article to a polemic rather than a film summary, especially when other sources, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, balance these aspects side by side rather than privileging one at the expense of the other. In short, the article should not shy away from the film's racist content, but neither should it read as though that is the only reason it remains a subject of study. The film is nearly 100 years old, it makes sense that it is easy to find plenty of discussions of its content that would support my side if I were to focus solely on the racism aspects, the same is true for most films even up to the 80s and 90s in an increasingly progressive society. Option C reflects this balance better than Option B, which in my view overcorrects by foregrounding the racial politics to the detriment of the film's technical and cinematic legacy. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
"The film is nearly 100 years old" 2025 marks the 110th anniversary of its initial release in 1915. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I had 1932 in my head for some reason. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Option DA (minus added dubious tags), which was the consensus version before this malformed RfC was opened and/or Closing as malformed per Betty Logan, TompaDompa and my discussion with both.  (here by bot request) There may be some is justification for changing the long-standing version.  When I came to this RfC, I amwas not convinced the edit-war over the WP:LEDE iswas serving the article well, so I reverted to the stable version of August 22:34, 5 August 2025, until the drama can be toned down.  Per my comments here, I would not oppose any editor who were to restore the first paragraph to version A (minus the dubious tags) which was the consensus prior to this RfC. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC) [revised 01:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC), 06:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)]
B or C, oppose A or D. As a reader, the connotation that Tito identifies for "criticism" did not come to mind, although I do see their point now. That having been said, "it is noted" I feel has a connotation of being positive, or at least highly distinct and interesting and I'm not sure that fits as an introduction for extreme racism. On the other hand, A's use of inline templates that cast doubt on the article's accuracy are definitely worse, and the distinction of "historically" vs "culturally" seems artificial; D meanwhile removes any mention of its historical significance from the first paragraph, which doesn't seem like an improvement, and means that the reader is going to go through a large second paragraph of laudatory text before learning at all about its significance to racism in the US. signed, Rosguill talk 22:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
D Return to the last long-term stable version. It struck the proper balance of highlighting the technical innovations which is why the film is most notable, while still appropriately covering the controversial issues. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I am involved, but I would suggest that somebody uninvolved procedurally close this RfC as having been started as part of an overt pattern of WP:Tendentious editing by Tito Omburo. TompaDompa (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Besides the ample evidence to this point presented by Betty Logan above and at WP:ANEW (see here), I would add that the maintenance tags that Tito Omburo explicitly does not think belong in the WP:LEAD (Option B removes inline  tags, which are editorial commentary and not appropriate for a lede (see WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD).) were added by Tito Omburo themself. That is WP:Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It is also a fairly transparent way to make Option A less appealing since that option nonsensically proposes to retain the maintenance tags. This is not a serious and good-faith WP:Request for comment, and should not be treated as one. TompaDompa (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I support closing the RfC also--as either premature and/or poorly formed.  Although I did not investigate the history closely or your claims, I suspected it was something of the nature of what you described.  The big clue for me was the false dilemma that did not include the stable version, and particularly the idea that we should vote for a version that includes the tags as you mention.  The whole thing looked fishy, so I support closing.
I do think there may be a legitimate concern about whether the racism should be mentioned earlier, perhaps, even in the first sentence.  However, some consensus would need to support such a significant change.  A simple RfC asking a simpler question(s) might be in order, but discussion should be tried first, so that any key issues can be identified.  --David Tornheim (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment @David Tornheim: Just to offer some clarity on the different versions (for newcomers who are finding the wall of text impenetrable):
Long-standing stable version (now Option D): [1] (in the article for several years)
Proposal #3 (Option A): [2] (installed by TompaDompa following unanimous consensus: [3]). [EDIT: the "dubious" tags were not part of the original consensus, those are a unilateral addition by Tito Omburo]
Option B: This is a new proposal by Tito Omburio.
Option C: Proposed by Ladtrack in the discussion above: [4] (a variant of Option A which addressed issues with the "historically/culturally" phrasing).
If you need any more information dug out please let me know. Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Tito included reasons when adding the dubious tags:
Historically,{{dubious|reason=Why is "film history" the only thing relevant to "History"|date=August 2025}}...
Culturally,{{dubious|reason=Obviously, a film that inspired mass demonstrations an banning in certain areas is more important under how "history" is conventionally understood, than that this is a "cultural" artifact of its production|date=August 2025}}...
I did not find the explanations particularly convincing or enlightening (you can't accurately say that one thing is historical, unless it's the only thing that's historical?), but perhaps someone who knows more about the subject will find this useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
D. The technical achievements in the film were groundbreaking and deserve prominence. And as someone pointed out above, there was no shortage of racist films at the time. Barry Wom (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Option B The film was groundbreaking but for anyone but film scholars they're going to know if for the racism.★Trekker (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Option D:I see no reason for the original lead to be changed. It deals with the issues well without trying to compress them into a single paragraph for no obvious reason.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
On the procedural question of whether Wikipedia:Maintenance tags belong in the lead:  Maintenance tags temporarily belong anywhere on any page that needs a problem fixed.  But you shouldn't end any RFC with a consensus to install maintenance tags; you should instead use the RFC discussion to find a consensus about how to fix the problem (or a consensus that the problem doesn't exist), and then fix it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
The RFC was shockingly formulated. The RFC originally offered us a choice between Option A (with tags) and Option B, and the creator of the RFC knew the discussion would not end in a consensus for Option A. I was in favor of a technical close on the grounds of being extremely non-neutral, but it has progressed so far now we may as well let it play out. Betty Logan (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Option D Maintaining the status quo is the safest choice, and maintains consistency. In the alternative, option C is the best of the proposed changes. Jcgaylor (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Option B as this is the basis for its notability. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Option D: there's no reason for packing everything into the first paragraph of the lead. However, I think we should streamline and shorten it a bit by getting rid of less relevant information (e.g., It came with a 13-page Souvenir Program. It was the first motion picture to be screened inside the White House...). Alternatively, I find option C more encyclopedic in tone, with a more natural flow: fist we address the film's formal and technical aspects, then we mention its contents and cultural/political impact. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment I have removed the dubious tags from option A, if consensus for this lede were to be achieved, it would not need dubious tags.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)