Talk:The Damned (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Italian cinema task force

[edit] Cleanup Notice

The entry for this film reads like an academic position paper of some kind, or at least an academician's explication of the movie, rather than an encyclopedic article. I think it should be redone. It's an important, seminal film, no doubt -- but a lot of what's in this entry seems more well-suited for another context than for Wikipedia. kvltpunk

This is a great article but the entire bottom half is pretty much worded like a movie review full of opinions about the film and the actors. Looking at the history, I see the lower article was written mostly by an anon user. The bottom half needs to be cleaned up and rewritten, in my opinion. -Husnock 14:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments on the history which I wrote. I'm in the process of cleaning it up in so far as hyperlinks are currently being added. I'm hoping to get around to adding a fuller analysis of the film itself which is currently written as together with the history it is part of a lecture I gave to my Italian cinema students. Please forgive any editing mistakes as I'm not fully familiar with all the Wiki system as yet. I didn't like the original review which dodn't cover the film in a serious way. User Mike Walford 08 Jan 2006.

• I have now edited and added a review and analysis of the critical response to the film in English. More work is still needed on production details. Mike Walford 08 Jan 06

"Through an analysis of The Damned (1969) with some detailed comparative work ofThe Leopard (1962) this article argues that the work of Visconti is overdue critical revision. Visconti's oeuvre is highly sophisticated regarding the nature of history." Etc.

This article is a critical review, not an article for an encyclopedia. Allthough there's a lot of useful information in it, the obviously biased parts can be deleted.82.156.33.187 18:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I vote for deleting most of the article and starting from scratch. The article as it is now is almost unreadable. Estrose 00:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

the article should start with some general information about the movie instead of launching right into an analysis all the historical background stuff could be replaced with wikilinks. none of it needs to be explained here in depth.--trueblood 07:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Trueblood. A "fuller analysis of the film itself. . .is part of a lecture I gave to my Italian cinema students" might make a fascinating entry in an anthology of film criticism, but is hardly appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia. A Wikipedia reader should look to this entry to provide objective facts about this movie... dramatis personae and cast, production details, detailed plot outline (n.b. not analysis), etc. Your article provides none of this information, and in fact would be completely meaningless to any reader who did not already know precisely that which an appropriate encyclopedia article would tell them. Moreover, as Trueblood also points out, Wikipedia already contains detailed and largely accurate accounts of the historical events that may have been fresher/more vivid to European audiences 40 years ago than they are to most of us now. Some readers might want to understand how the violent rift between the SS and the SA came to be, while others might only care to know just enough information to distinguish them. Give them the choice. 68.72.98.25 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and more!

I basically want to agree with Trueblood's comments, and expand on them a bit.

Now, I hardly know anything about the film (I came here based on User:Trueblood's comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films), but giving the article a quick skim, it seems to me that probably 90-95% of the article needs to be dumped. Virtually the entire section labelled 'Analysis of the major critical responses in English' violates 2 of the 3 fundamental Wikipedia content policies: both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. As for the 'Historical Background' section, because everything in Wikipedia is linked, the only historical context required are perhaps a brief summary of the events, and a quick wikilink to Hitler, or Nazism, or even the Reichstag fire and the Night of the Long Knives. It is then up to the Wikipedia reader to do their own research on the issues. (I'm sure this is in accordance with official Wikipedia policy, I'm just not sure the specific relevant policy right now.)

Personally, I would recommend blanking the entire article (minus the infobox) and starting over. But, not really knowing much about the movie, I don't feel confident enough to do this, and so I leave it up to someone who actually knows about the film, and thus might be better equipped to say what in the article should actually stay. --Gpollock 08:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sidenote: I was looking at the history of the article, to see if a simple revert might be all we need, but the versions before the historical context and analysis stuff contain little more than a plot desription lifted from IMDb.com. It's apparently reproduced with permission, but I'm not sure whether or not it would count as a reliable source. My recommendation remains starting over and rewriting the article bascially from scratch. --Gpollock 08:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)