Jump to content

Talk:Death of a Nation (2018 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Twitter controversy

As seen here, I removed the "Twitter controversy" section. As I stated in the edit summary, only Newsweek covers this matter. I did not find any other secondary sources that covered it, so I believe it is undue weight to have such a section. Perhaps it could belong in a "Marketing" section, but I have not seen much coverage about marketing. If other sources reference this matter as part of covering this film's release, we can find a way to re-include it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Release

I saw that the "Box office" subsection existed independently of the "Release" section without mentioning the release date. There is no reason that the release date should be separated from box office coverage since these two aspects are very closely tied together. We were having too many section and subsection headings, anyway. As for where "Critical reception" goes, I separated it out because to keep it as a subsection is to go back to the problem of separating release and box office into their own sections. That section can be treated as standalone because while it is tied with the film's release, it is still distinct enough, like how any work would obviously be received when it is available to others. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Metacritic

I find this edit to be POV because no secondary source highlights this, and we already have such sources discussing the nature of its reception directly. We do not mine databases for box office milestones to highlight; we leave it to such sources to determine what is worth noting. In the same vein, we should not mine databases for critical-reception milestones (in any direction). What do other editors think? Pinging those who edited recently: Neateditor123, 1990'sguy, Dimadick. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(I’m the one who did the edit) I think it’s important/interesting to note. It’s a “historic” score, and we constantly will make note of films like Moonlight and Call Me by Your Name being among the best reviewed on the sites, so why should the opposite not be true? The film has been panned, so it’s not like we’re laying on the hate/bias/unbalance more than should be to remain neutral. TropicAces (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)tropicAces
The fact that only you think that "it's important/interesting" shows that it is POV. Getting a Metacritic score of zero is not anything noteworthy in the encyclopedic sense (as evidenced by the lack of secondary sources about such scores), much less being part of a set of films that have zero on Metacritic. Wikipedia needs to follow secondary sources, especially in the case of such a statement as this. WP:SECONDARY says, "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Mining a database for a score and evaluating the top films with such a score and presenting it as important when no one else has observed it as such is original research. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
"lack of secondary sources" It is way too soon for the film to have much coverage. We are at the first days of its release. Wait for a while to determine reception. Dimadick (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I say leave it out for now. In two or three weeks, if it still has a "historic" score, we could probably re-add it. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Release redux

TropicAces, there is no need to move the paragraph that says "release" in four different ways out of the "Release" section itself. There is no evidence that this film will warrant its own "Box office" section or subsection, especially when it is nothing like the franchise films that achieve box office milestones. See the developed article America: Imagine the World Without Her#Release for how a "Release" section is sufficient. We don't need to subsection everything. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary Citations...

I don't know why the page has to cite someone saying that the film was negatively received. Can't we just say the film was negatively received WITHOUT having to cite someone saying the film was negatively received? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neateditor123 (talk • contribs) 20:21, August 4, 2018 (UTC)

We need to write an encyclopedic article, and part of this process is not presenting Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores as if they are readily understandable by everyone. Per MOS:FILM#Critical response, "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Detailed commentary from reliable sources regarding the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) is encouraged." If you see a Wikipedia article for a film just stating RT or MC scores, it still needs work. Just dropping in these scores should not be considered sufficient for an encyclopedic approach. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

While I do understand and respect your opinion, the fact that the statement that the film was negatively received by critics is cited from a news article (and even put in quotes!) makes that particular fact seem like someone's opinion, not an actual fact. Virtually every single other Wikipedia that I've gone to just says that the film was negatively or positively received by critics WITHOUT having to cite someone saying it. I'm sorry, but this is just not how Wikipedia works. --Neateditor123 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

You may just be reading the lead, which would simply say the film was well or poorly-received without necessarily citing it. As Erik said, we are striving to create an encyclopedia. If the film is panned, we have to say why. Though I will note that there are citations that indicate the film's warm reception by some conservatives, which is in line with the encyclopedia representing all points of view. Also, not trying to come off as rude, but I'm not sure an account with 276 edits since its creation in December should really be definitively saying "this is not how Wikipedia works." Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 17:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

All I'm trying to say here is that if you're citing somebody else saying that the film was negatively received instead of just saying the film was negatively received, it makes it look like that person's opinion and not a genuine fact. What's wrong with just saying the film was negatively received WITHOUT citing anybody, then listing a bunch of negative critical reviews below that statement to prove your point? It seems perfectly OK to me. Even better, you could just ditch that statement altogether and just start with listing the Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic score, then ambiguously listing the critics' negative reviews below. I wouldn't be getting all upset over all this if it weren't for the fact that I have literally not seen ONE Wikipedia page that has done what you guys did. --Neateditor123 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

First, it is very easy for RT and MC scores to be plugged into most film articles, but that does not mean that the work of presenting the "Critical reception" section is done. RT and MC scores can be problematic in the sense of editors trying to use these websites to state a specific way the film was received. You may have also seen made-up terms like "mixed-positive" or "mixed-negative" as a result. The guidelines support providing a prose summary of how critics received a film, and this can be done if there is a source that recaps the reviews in prose. It's not a problem to quote someone directly because it is in-text attribution for when we use quotes. You can suggest a paraphrasing based on these sources, using a variation of their wording, but there's no similar wording from RT to paraphrase, though MC's wording can sometimes be used. (Some people dislike "universal acclaim" from MC since it seems to indicate that everyone liked it 100% across the board.) I'll keep an eye out for additional summary recaps about this film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the last time I am going to touch upon this issue as I am growing extremely sick of it by now, but the ONLY thing I'm saying is that in my opinion, if you cite someone else saying the film was negatively received, it makes that fact seem like that particular writer's opinion, NOT an actual fact. And again, I'll say that I have literally NOT seen ONE Wikipedia page that did what you did, which also makes this particular edit very problematic for me. At the very least, I want a full explanation on why you have to actually cite someone talking about how the critics received the film instead of just saying how the critics received the film. --Neateditor123 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)--Neateditor123 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

The movie was panned almost without exception. That's a fact. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I hate to touch upon this yet AGAIN (ugh), but you didn't exactly answer my question of why you have to cite somebody saying the film was panned instead of just SAYING so, which is what virtually every single OTHER Wikipedia page that I've visited has done. I at least just want to hear your full thoughts and opinions on this issue before we (hopefully) close this case forever.

Warmest Regards, --Neateditor123 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

If we use only RT or MC, it can be iffy to determine what wording to use when reading (some say interpreting) numbers. Obviously on both websites the numbers are extremely low. With MC, we can use "overwhelming dislike" or a paraphrasing of it, based directly on their web page. RT does not have any such wording. The point of referencing sources that define the reception in prose is so we can worry less about coming up with suitable wording. E.g., is "received negative reviews" too weak? Is "got universally panned" really appropriate due to the absoluteness of "universally" and the slang of "panned" on a globally-read encyclopedia? By saying this source recapped the reception as such, we can actually define in prose how a film was received and then provide numeric details in further support of that statement. Etzedek24, any take on this approach? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Erik: I'm just still a bit perplexed at the way in which the editor is expressing their concerns re "citing someone saying the film was panned instead of just saying so." As I noted above, it's a fact that the movie was almost without exception poorly received by professional film critics, so we have a duty to communicate that fact in the article, which we have through the use of reliable sources. If it were me, to avoid NPOV or UNDUE accusations, I would try to add more reception from notable conservatives who enjoyed the film. I don't think there's too much of a problem with the language, while I do agree with your point on "universally" being a word to avoid. I think, for an English-language encyclopedia and topic that probably doesn't garner much interest outside of the US, that "panned" is a fine word to use. The editor is creating a problem where none exists. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 16:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the balance of reception, I think it is tricky to find the right balance beyond routine film reviews. WP:UNDUE says, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." There do not appear to be any publications with routine film reviews that review this documentary positively. What I tried to do with America: Imagine the World Without Her is to have a "Political commentary" section where we could source non-film review commentary, but at this point, I am not seeing anything useful. I've checked National Review, which has commented on D'Souza's past films, but so far, they have not commented on this one. America does reference a couple of opposing political blogs at the end of its "Critical reception" section, which I don't really support, but their referencing is a small proportion of the overall section, which is mainly focused on routine film reviews. What do you think? If we listed politically-driven sources, where should they go if we did reference them? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Al right, all right, all right, fine. Since you can't agree with my opinion, I have decided to compromise and move the section in question to the bottom of that particular section so it makes a lot more sense to the reader. You can check it out now. Enjoy!

Warmest regards, --Neateditor123 (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

Please stop removing the citation for critics "panning" the film and please stop balkanizing the summary coverage. The first paragraph is to be focused on a summary overview of the critical reception, followed by sampling of that reception. There's no need to go back to a summary angle after the sampling. The summary angle can be compiled upfront. Not sure why you're so resistant to this. Just because you see only RT and MC presented at the beginning doesn't mean it's the ideal solution. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Etzedek24, DirkDouse, do you have a preference on which approach to use? Neateditor123's version vs. mine here? Or some other wording? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I think yours is fine. It flows better and they've failed to offer any significant policy rationale for changing it other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I trust your judgement as an editor of primarily film articles with almost 80k edits as opposed to someone who isn't even extended confirmed. Not trying to bite newcomers, but it is what it is. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems equally understandable/coherent in both versions. If the Wikipedia style guide does indicate that "the first paragraph is to be focused on a summary overview of the critical reception, followed by sampling of that reception," then the version that Erik proposed would probably make more sense in terms of consistency with other articles. If it's still being debated, a link to the relevant part of the style guide might be helpful in resolving this unambiguously. As far as a casual reader's understanding of the article, it's a toss up from my read through. DirkDouse (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Critical Reception...

Peter Sobczynski is a movie critic, he is not a historian. This film is a documentary and Peter has no expertise to judge this film's historical accuracy. His irrelevant opinion on the film's accuracy should be removed and replaced by the opinion of a professional historian. 2601:646:8500:A6B9:E063:D684:C221:1418 (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Though undoubtedly the case, Sobczynski does not call the film historically inaccurate in the portions of the review quoted in this article. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 04:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been on the lookout for historians commenting on the film. The EL section has this that mentions the film but only tangentially, so not sure how much that analysis compares to what the film discusses. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

References to use

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Synopsis

Historians

In the lead section, I added the following sentence, "Historians have discredited the film's premises of tying the Democratic Party's policies to the Nazi Party's own and of connecting liberalism with fascism," because there is a "Historical accuracy" section. DirkDouse added a "who?" template even though this section names the historians critiquing the premises. Not sure why not naming them is contentious where not naming "professional film critics" is not contentious. What do other editors think? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, historians are authoritative in matters of history. Unless historians are disputing each other about the film's premises, it should be stated simply that the premises are discredited. I've been on the lookout for additional sources. If there are historians supporting the premises, then we can rework the article accordingly. There is zero reason for layperson editors to cast doubt on the currently-cited historians' assessments. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Claiming that the film is discredited based on the content/citations of the 'Historical accuracy' section is misleading and simplistic. On a related note, this article has one sentence of synopsis that barely scrapes the surface of what the film's premise even is. Substantially more clarify in terms of the film's content, premises, and claims is needed to make statements regarding it's overall accuracy. The issue with that phrasing is less in regards to whether the sources are relevant as it is in regards to the claim that the film as a whole is discredited based on the relatively narrow critiques cited. DirkDouse (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I've changed it to identify each historian responding to each premise. As for the "Synopsis" section, any editor is welcome to expand it per WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PSTS, in particular keeping to a basic description of the primary source (the film). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, even a fleshed-out "Synopsis" section has no weight here because the film is a primary source. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be mainly based on secondary sources, which means sources writing about the film. We've covered critical reception thoroughly, we have a couple of historians' responses, but we don't really have any political commentary like what was gathered at America: Imagine the World Without Her. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Great. New intro rework is much clearer/specific. I expanded on the synopsis section. The historians/articles cited seem to cover primarily questions of a) whether the Nazi party was influenced by the US Democratic party and b) whether the left can be defined as facist. Have done some digging to find additional sources in regards to the other aspects of the film; there seems to be fairly limited critique of the other sections, at least as of the time of these edits. Would be worth looking into further. DirkDouse (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that a section on political commentary would be useful. May be additional useful sources in that area. DirkDouse (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
One odd omission is that the National Review has not written anything about this film, whereas there had been commentary on past films. Not sure why. EDIT: Another omission is American Spectator not having written anything for this, though it does look like they wrote about Hillary's America a month after it came out. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Swarm, was semi-protection really necessary? There has been relatively minimal disruptive editing, especially for this topic, and there's nothing going on IRL post-release that would lead to more such edits. Is there some high-level politics-related angle I'm missing? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Political commentary

Started a section on political commentary. Current content is mostly moderate right. Could use other perspectives. Most of the left-leaning resources that I have come across so far are film critiques / more appropriate for the critical reception section.

Also noted that several people with connections to the Trump Administration, such as Donald Trump Jr. and Sebastian Gorka have made a few comments on the film. Might be worth noting somewhere, if relevant sources can be found.

Found a few resources from far-right political commentators as well. Haven't gone through them as of the time of this edit:

Another moderate-right resource that for political commentary:

DirkDouse (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

At this point, it really is just conservative commentary. I'm a bit disinclined to reference the more bloggish stuff (anywhere along the political spectrum) since it seems easily challenged as reliable sourcing (especially in the sense of editorial control and reputation for fact-checking). Hence why I was hoping for political commentary from established (print) periodicals. I don't know about the compelling need for the current sources or the proposed ones above, but I'd rather see that we keep a fairly condensed paragraph or two. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Finding sources directly from authoritative commenters seems to be the biggest issue. There are a few articles that essentially say "[political commentator] said [X]," but not a ton of sources directly from those commenters. If/when more authoritative sources are published/found, reworking/revisiting the section would be useful. DirkDouse (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Box Office Values -- Wikipedia In-Article Variables?

Noticed that there have been a number of edits syncing up the box office value (currently $4.7M) between the sidebar and intro. I did some searching to look for a way to synchronize the values automatically; couldn't find support for a relevant tool/template/script. Anyone know of a way to do this? Would think there would be support for something like:

TropicAces, do you know of a reason why this would not work? I can't think of this being done anywhere. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Erik DirkDouse I’m going to be completely honest, I really don’t know what either of you are talking about. Is the question why not put the decimal amount in the lead section and just put the “rounded” number? TropicAces (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)tropicAces
I think Dirk is suggesting a way to update the number in one place without worrying about having to update it in other places. A kind of a template, if you will. As for rounding, the $4.7 is already rounded, we don't need to round it yet again. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- a way to change one field and have it cascade to everywhere else the value is used in the article. In this context with only two uses of the value, it's a minor issue, but seems like something that Wikipedia may support. Can definitely imagine other articles having a value/number appear many times throughout the article and hitting a point where it's impractical/tedious to manually update all uses. DirkDouse (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I really can't think of anything. Maybe ask at Help talk:Template? I think that would be the closest technical forum. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Looked around some more and am pretty sure the only way to do something like this is to actually make a separate single-use template page like "Template:Death_of_a_nation_box_office_value" and then edit the value there. Would be easy enough to do, but with only two uses of the value, seems like it would be more confusing than useful. DirkDouse (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, ok I’m caught up now. Ummm yeah I don’t see why (on paper) that would be an issue, but like you said with it only mentioned at two points not sure if doing it all would be worth it, for this page at least. A “bigger” film article like an MCU one may benefit from it, though. TropicAces (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Snippet on Main Dinesh D'Souza Article

Reworked the section about Death of a Nation in D'Souza's main article. Hadn't been updated since before the film's release. Pulled/reworked some relevant content from parts of the main article. Other editors working on the Death of a Nation article might be interested in glancing over / touching up that section. DirkDouse (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 11/9

Editors who have contributed to this article are also invited to contribute to Fahrenheit 11/9. I've given that article an overhaul, and the film will be released in a week. It is likely there will be coverage from all quarters, and a variety of policy- and guideline-based opinions would be welcome for balancing various aspects of the article when the time comes. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

Since the general-forum comments have persisted, I am collapsing this per WP:NOTAFORUM. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I think some version of the following should be added to the Historical accuracy section:

The film strategically omits history whereas the Democratic and Republican parties slowly switched much of their geographical voter base over a century of realigning elections, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt leaving the Republican platform and creating the Bull Moose Party, 'pulpiting' trust-busting a progressive issue. The film neglects that John F Kennedy and the Democratic party pushed for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was opposed by Barry Goldwater as part of the Republican southern strategy, and that the party whose constituents did once nominate John C. Breckinridge on a pro-slavery platform, later succeeded in electing the country's first African-American president. The film also relies on the historian's fallacy, in that most historical leaders would be considered racist by today's standards, Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson both included; it does not hold them accountable in equal measure. Moreover, racism common to the period fed to some degree both sides of the civil war, with northern whites wanting soil free of slavery on which to homestead and riots in the north against going to war to "free slaves." Lincoln's platform was anti-expansion of slavery, and was neither abolitionist nor for granting African-Americans civil rights; he actually fired Republican party founder General John C. Frémont partly for freeing the slaves in Missouri. Lincoln finally issued the Emancipation Proclamation—which only freed slaves in rebelling states through nullifying fugitive slave laws—as an economic warfare tactic to preserve the union. History is far more nuanced and complex: Lincoln's vice president was Andrew Johnson who was actually a war Democrat that ratified the end of union slavery of the border, and Republican Ulysses S. Grant was technically the last president to have ever been a slave owner——through marriage; both men freed their slaves before the war. The omission of broad principle historic facts allow Dinesh D'Souza to paint the Republican party as a timeless champion for minority and human rights through leadership from Lincoln to Trump. A progressive era fact focus offers narrow flaws in some period democrats as proof that today's democratic party is unchanged since the civil war and unlearned since the 1920's. Nether of today's political parties have much of any resemblance to their 1860's platforms, and the country now is a very different place.

The "wikilinks" go to entire Wikipedia pages which substantiate the facts of this passage. Perhaps it may need a bit of tweaking in style/voice and a speckling of citations. I think this is better than the already existent practice of this section of citing lone college professors with websites and a less than completely relevant opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.130.197 (talk • contribs) 01:42, September 14, 2018 (UTC)

Etzedek24 is correct in removing the unsourced content as original research. Citations have to be in regard to this film, otherwise it is falsely presented as a critique of the film. That is why the critique is limited to academics who have commented directly on the film. Wiki-links can be provided if readers want to read about a historical topic in depth. Editors cannot go out of their way to present conclusions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, consideration, and explanation. Is there a way editors can present omitted facts that allow readers to make or revise their own conclusions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.130.197 (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The content would need citations that are talking explicitly about this film as opposed to combining existing sources to reach new conclusions. Even if sources were added to support the claims, the Wikipedia guidelines on content for WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH, would still mean that the content wouldn't fit into this article, since there really isn't too much that has been published specifically about this film. You could consider reworking your original with citations and editing it into articles like History of the United States Republican Party and History of the United States Democratic Party. The Death of a Nation article has wikilinks to other related pages under "see also"; readers who want to delve into the history/accuracy/surrounding context of the film can do so through heading over to those pages. DirkDouse (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I think adding these history articles to the "See also" sections is a great solution. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I generally agree that policy must be followed for the general greater good of Wikipedia. I must say though, the film presents controversial if not unwarranted conclusions by omitting critical history, and that a section labeled "historical accuracy" for such a film ought to be a place where the accuracy of the film can be met with challenging facts. It is not just historical facts either, it goes to present. Consider this fact: The Obama administration announced the future replacement of the founder of the Democratic Party from the 20 dollar bill with a leader of the underground railroad. This was rescinded by the subsequent Trump administration, who the film will have you believe is Lincoln's successor to elevate minorities. That hoodwinking leaves a trail of tears not of the Jacksonian kind. This film is arguably a real danger to popular truth. I'm not sure the "See also" links are enough of a solution, but I agree it is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.130.197 (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"The Obama administration announced the future replacement of the founder of the Democratic Party from the 20 dollar bill with a leader of the underground railroad. This was rescinded by the subsequent Trump administration"

In this case, there was some uncertainty on where to place Harriet Tubman's image. According to the United States twenty-dollar bill article, the plan in 2015 was to place it on a redesigned ten-dollar bill, as a replacement to the portait of Alexander Hamilton. However, there was a "public outcry", as Hamilton's historical reputation has improved recently due to his depiction in a Broadway musical.

In 2016, it was announced that Tubman's portait would instead be placed on the front of the $20 bill, "with Jackson appearing on the reverse."

In 2017, it was announced that plans for any redesign of the dollar bills were postponed, as "Right now, we have a lot more important issues to focus on." Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Haha, this whole digression is funny. The Obama admin offered up Alexander Hamilton during his all time popularity, as setup to fail, because they knew Jacksonian hawkishness is revered by some Tea Party conservatives which would cause objection from the right; the ploy to rid Jackson worked at first. Anyhow, it's very true that it was decided to replace the controversial Jackson and not Hamilton, and this was halted under Trump for no compelling reason. I bet you could find many engravers who would be honored to do Tubman's portrait for free, and the Treasury redesigns the bills every few years anyway for security. It's pure politics, let's at least stick to history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.74.94.81 (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I always though conservatives liked Jackson because his famous monetary policy ironically opposed central banking. Having him on the twenty is kind of like having Scott Pruitt head the EPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.236.91 (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_a_Nation_(2018_film)/Archive_1&oldid=882047865"