Talk:The Damned (1969 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Italian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles

Cleanup Notice[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]