Talk:Pre-Code Hollywood

Potential undue weight given to questionable source

Of the 381 unique inline citations throughout the article, 45% are attributed to Thomas Patrick Doherty's Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema, 1930-1934. Yesterday, I spent time updating the paragraphs on the film Freaks, as, in addition to the outdated or offensive language, the explanations of the film were woefully inaccurate.

The first issue was that the editor(s) misunderstood Doherty's writing, but further than that, the editor(s) couldn't differentiate between reliable fact in Doherty's text and his opinions. The article previously included the following line: "There is also a group of Pinheads, who are depicted as fortunate in that they are not mentally capable enough to understand that they disgust people." Through its directness of the editor's personal interpretation, this sentence managed to be a more offensive version of its source: "The pinheads are lucky: mentally retarded, they do not know what the rest of the world thinks of them." (p. 313) But Freaks includes no scene indicating this. The film portrays the disabled characters simply as human beings. This is merely the author's opinions about people with microcephaly, and the editor misunderstood it as a fact of the film's story or content.

Aside from further describing his disgust with disabled persons when writing about an inclusive film, the second issue lies in Doherty's questionable understanding of the material he's discussing. Doherty writes of a pivotal scene in Freaks: "After the marriage, around a long table for the wedding dinner, the assembled freaks chant, 'Gooble-gobble, gooble, gobble, one of us, one of us, now she is like one of us.'" (p. 315) An inaccurate quote. Doherty continues, "Drunk on wine, Hans passes out and Cleopatra [his bride] carries her insensate husband across the threshold, like a small child, to the honeymoon bed." (p. 315) But it is also a major story point that Hans never drinks during the celebrations and is entirely sober, as he narrowly avoided the poisoned drink he was given. The character is undeniably awake, as he even speaks. It's as if Doherty never saw the film, and instead transcribed someone else's hazy memory. It draws into question the reliability of any claims made in this article regarding content of the films, so long as they are relying on Doherty as a source.

It's possible that his content regarding Pre-Code laws, dates, or regulations are accurate, but I'm wary to put much faith into someone who couldn't be bothered to verify the content of a one-hour film. We should probably find additional supporting sources for any claims supported by this source. – Primium (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems a bit nitpicky and retroactively activist. Also, its A LOT of WP:OR you would need sources to discredit the book based on some claims not some retroactive activism based on your own interpretations. Since I am the one who did approximately 90% of the work here and its been abandoned, I would not expect much to be done here in any manner regardless. AaronY (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"Strong female characters"

The phrases "strong female characters" and "stronger female characters" are currently used in the lead section, but not explained. The meaning of "strong female character" in this context should be clarified. Is it a subjective term? Is it a film industry term? What does it mean? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There is uncited prose throughout the article, particularily in the "Home media" section.
• At over 14,000 words, WP:TOOBIG states that it probably should be split. I think there is information that can be removed from the article or summarised more effectively.
• There are several external links: can some of these be removed per WP:ELNO?

Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I had intended to split this up and shrink is why I made the daughter articles, but I am not active so this didn't and wont happen obviously. AaronY (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Pre-Code Hollywood

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 22:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

At over 14,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends summarising, splitting and removing article prose. There are also some uncited statements, particularily in the "Home video" section. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Spy

Hello, anybody out here who know if this film would fit in the documentary film section? Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)