Talk:500 Years Later

message: This article reads like an advertisement. In fact, a lot of the text seems to be lifted straight from the press kit, see for example this google search and  and  (that latter page mentions 'summary written by Halaqah Media'). Examples of problematic phrases:
*'500 Years Later engages the authentic retrospective voice, told from the African vantage-point of those whom history has sought to silence by examining the collective atrocities that uprooted Africans from their culture and homeland.'
*'500 Years Later is a timeless compelling journey'
*'Here, we have a taste of the breadth of this rich cultural legacy that often has to exist within the limited confines of the genres defined and created by others outside of itself.'
*'A full cast from some of the best minds in the African American (and African) academic world'
It might be best to rewrite this from scratch, though some statistics and verifiable statements could stand. — mark ✎ 10:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: I have cleaned the article up further, bias claims and wording used and either dead or worthless pages used for references.
'The producers complained about the racism involved in screening African-centred content and many in the African-British community saw this as part of the racism in the United Kingdom.'  has no actual reference so should not be linked, if it is implying the film was not distributed due to racism then it should really be linked and not just flagged as 'link dead'  Again this is implied in the quote attributed to California Newsreel however no link to support it.  The references regarding "internationally recognised as the hallmark film..." are an Afrocentric blog reviewing the film and a NY Times reader review section with only 3 reviews all from the same user.  This is not sufficient to support the claim of international recognition as THE hallmark film on the legacy of slavery.  I have tried to make the article more balanced too as all information i can find on the ZIFF 2007 states it won a special award not best documentary.  The award appears to have been given by ZIFF rather than UNESCO so it seems odd to repeatedly refer to it as a UNESCO award.  In fact despite searching the only pages I can find referring to it as a UNESCO award are pages related to the documentary itself and the ZIFF website so it would appear to be more a ZIFF award than UNESCO.  This may seem like nitpicking but if the article is biased in a way to promote the film then it is relevant.  Stevowills1 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me explain to the new user how things work, WP:TAGGING you have been reverted for your edits--do not continue to impose your edits. If these are issues then discuss them! once reverted! First we have tags for information in dispute, you do not on your own delete large sections of a page because of the reasons above (like dead links). When you use the talk page you create a new section not comment on another section. There is no doubt the film received a UNESCO award because the Zanzibar award (to those who know the film festival) know that UNESCO sponsored and approved awards for slavery. Yes it is nitpicking and actually not constructive because you are taking info out of the article. Now the racism received by the film does have a ref, the problem is the site no longer exist, that does not make the facts of racism experience irrelevant! Very relevant. Information provided by the filmmakers is also good enough since they are primary sources and such sources can be used. And again my biggest issue is how you have just shown up and made no corrections but only wholesale deletions! that is not an improvement. --Inayity (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It took my 10 minutes of searching to fix EVERY reference the new editor had issue with. So much so that the original emails from California Newreel and Danny Cohen are clearly seen! Totally no doubts left. The Blink site is no longer active but found the original article before the org closed down..--Inayity (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Do me TWO favor and respect the Rules of Wikipedia who the article does belong to. The other thing If you are not good at research and reading ref, that is not anyone's burden but your own. Do not come back and say the ref does not support the statement, when in the very ref is 100% proof of an email from Cohen from channel 4. What more can anyone ask for? Cuz I will not hold your hand and read the ref for you. It took no time to find the UNESCO ref, nor the Channel 4 email from Danny showing his remarks.WP:PRIMARYNOTBADare allowed as it is their notable experience. And on Wiki we tag WP:TAGGINGproblem areas and WP:NORUSH. As for a "site selling" the DVDs, it is written by the editors-- IMDB, NEW YORK times all have adverts selling films. Absolutely nothing to do with RS. what the hell does that have to do with their views/experience with making the film? And despite admitting that you are not familiar, still you start your Wikipedia days by creating your own rules and terms for editing and deleting. Stick to What Wikipedia says and not what you think. --Inayity (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

text: You know you edited this article, then I came in and added references. i am not sure What some of your remarks about this editor have to do with the article. STICK TO POLICY. What are you one about? Yes you have violated the rules by Editing warring, by ignore and deleting ref you have not read or understood, and by discussing personal feelings which you claim I have. I think you better get specific as these vague claims of bad ref I do not see. Is the Blink Site not working,? Is the Swahili site a dead link? Where is this dead link?--Inayity (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Why are you edit Waring on this article? and then so bold as to file a complaint about WP:COI. i honestly do not think you are actually making a coherent argument. Have you read the BLINK article? Do you understand Wikipedia ref policy? You are right because of what your own rationale, where is the wikipedia rationale? What the is this link for are you blind  Is that not a channel 4 email? --Inayity (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up 2014

message: ፭፻ doesnt work in the article-
Reference 1 is a dead link.  My computer said love (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference missing 

message: I recently watched this, and the claims were mostly verifiable or reasonable.  Once claim was that 'the first person convicted under the British Incitement to Racial Hatred laws was an African-Carbbean man'.  I can't find evidence for this claim, but I can find it quoted elsewhere.  76.21.107.221 (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claims 

message: Plot edited as of December 10, 2015.  Ewells64 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure I agree, but you do not delete content wholesale, What you do is try to fix it. All the problem was it was a direct copy and paste from the Blurb. --Inayity (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. We remove copyvios immediately. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it a copyvio? Is a quote a copy vio?--Inayity (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Taking text from another source and putting it here is a copyvio. Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not get into this, because it is subjective, at least the problem has been mutually fixed. We could have just added "Crime,drugs..."--Inayity (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

text: I will not go into this but I think QUOTING is allowed. Per international copyright law.--Inayity (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I seem to be going into this, that is why I changed the plot from the blurb found on the website, and said We can just put Quotes around "crime drugs, HIV.."
you "changed" it only once somebody else had input, you have been all over the article prior to this and never felt the need to change it.  Why? You only suggested quotations after somebody else changed it, did you not care for the quality of the article or wiki policy prior to that?   Obviously i am being funny with you but after all of your condescending comments toward me it is fun for me to poke fun at you.  Whats funnier is you will more than likely comment again as you need to have the last word lol either way this is my last post on the matter of the "plot" section unless it is changed again, have fun...Stevowills1 (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Plot" section