Talk:Louise Franklin

Possible image

As I find potential images to use for her infobox, I'll add them here. Here's the first I've found so far. Silverseren^C 00:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's another option. Silverseren^C 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind. Unless I somehow find something better, I'm going with this, the most clear and honestly best photo I could have ever expected. Silverseren^C 17:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that films starring actress Louise Franklin were banned in Memphis, Tennessee, by the film censor because they depicted African-Americans as "well-dressed, intelligent, acting sweethearts"? Source: "Shades of the late Lloyd Binford, who banned Rochester and Louise Franklin in "Brewster's Millions," and others because they portrayed well-dressed, intelligent acting sweethearts in the films." - Talk of the Week, The Call
  • ALT1: ... that a film starring African-American actress Louise Franklin in a role showcasing "well-dressed, intelligent acting sweethearts" was banned by the film censor in Memphis, Tennessee?
  • ALT2: ... that actress Louise Franklin replaced the main dancing role in 1945's Pillow to Post after Dorothy Dandridge was injured in a car accident? Source: Scene Saved As Louise Take Over For Injured Dandridge
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Small-town opera house
  • Comment: Article was moved from draftspace to mainspace with this edit.

Created by Silver seren (talk) and FloridaArmy (talk). Nominated by Silver seren (talk) at 19:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Louise Franklin; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nice work. "1930's" and "50's" should be changed to "1930s", "1950s" etc. per MOS:DECADES, but I won't delay approval of this DYKN over this issue. Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Silverseren, Epicgenius, and Vaticidalprophet: I've pulled this hook out of prep per discussion at WT:DYK. If another hook could be found or the sourcing could be bolstered, that'd be ideal :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The WTDYK discussion looked like it was resolving towards "... that films starring African-American actress Louise Franklin in roles showcasing "well-dressed, intelligent acting sweethearts" were banned by the film censor in Memphis, Tennessee?". Are there any objections to that? Vaticidalprophet 09:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't see evidence that more than one of the censored films starred Louise Franklin. —Kusma (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
      • Fine, how's the Alt I added above? Silverseren^C 12:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
        • The text to source integrity is better now; the main issue I see with that is that the "sweethearts" refers not just to Franklin's character, but also to that of Eddie "Rochester" Anderson. I still do not think the source is particularly good (a throwaway comment about the censor in an opinionated article on a different film) so I would still suggest to try to find a better sourced hook. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
          • Do you have any suggestions, Kusma? I considered the banning of her film to be one of the most interesting parts of her article. The rest is more general being in films info. Silverseren^C 22:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
            • Well, you could try to work with the actual words of the censor Lloyd Binford (a rather unpleasant white supremacist) instead of letting someone else put words in his mouth. See this scholarly article, for example, which has some of the quotes about Brewster's Millions (1945 film). BTW I think there is indeed another film involving Franklin that was censored by Binford: A Song Is Born, where Franklin seems to have an uncredited part. Unfortunately most of the sources I have found do not focus on Franklin. —Kusma (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
              • I've added another alt, Kusma. Silverseren^C 03:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
                • That seems covered by the source, although it seems they only used her in distance shots and didn't use her voice so the switch wouldn't be noticed. —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I suppose at this point it would be best to get a fresh review, with the focus being on ALT2. Silverseren^C 01:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron, Can this nomination be put back on the Template talk:Did you know page so a re-review can be done? Silverseren^C 01:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

My bad, Silver seren!  Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that the film banning is the story here, and that's what the hook should be about. If the sourcing for ALT1 isn't right, then let's find better sourcing. RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • There's a good quote at https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/25740 (it's a brain-dead page; you need to click the "more" link at the bottom of the History tab to see the quote)

    Hawks also claimed that he was asked not to position "the Negroes and the white musicians too close together" during their scenes. According to a Dec 1948 Var item, Lloyd T. Binford, head of the Memphis board of censors, banned the film in that city, complaining that "'it shows a rough rowdy bunch of musicians of both colors. It is supposed to be about the birth of jazz music in New Orleans. There is no segregation.'"

    I'll also note that I'm usually excited to learn new words and thus expand my vocabulary. Researching this, I learned "sepian", which left me the opposite of excited.
    • There's also a mention of Franklin in The Hollywood Low-Down, August 1935, page 33 (https://ia800806.us.archive.org/29/items/hollywoodlowdown00holl_0/hollywoodlowdown00holl_0.pdf)
    • Dayton Daily Bulletin:
      • https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn84024221/1944-11-21/ed-1/?sp=1&r=0.188,0.233,0.857,0.7,0
      • https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn84024221/1944-09-18/ed-1/?sp=1&r=0.012,1.133,0.608,0.497,0

RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I added in the Dayton sources with their info, thanks for those. As for the Binford banning, here's two other sources on that.

'Brewster's Millions' Is Banned By Binford

Collier's Provokes Argument In Rap At Movie Censors Here (For some reason, this page keeps redirecting to not available, so here's a link to the cropped image itself)

What were you thinking, RoySmith on how to fix all this? Silverseren^C 20:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have any specific suggestions. RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• What is the current status of this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Just needs a re-review on ALT2 as the replacement hook, Narutolovehinata5. Silverseren^C 21:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Or if another reviewer is okay with the original hooks based on the added sources covering them now. Silverseren^C 21:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: as the original reviewer can you take a look at ALT2 and let us know if it is approved? Z1720 (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Thanks for the ping. ALT2 looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius:Are you able to do a review and add the green check if it's approved? Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Sure, I could do that. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - There were a few entries in the "Filmography" section that did not have sources. For example, the entire "TV series" subsection is unsourced, although it's pretty short, and some of the films are also unsourced. I missed this in the initial review; sorry about that.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Just one issue that I forgot to check in the previous review, but otherwise ALT2 looks good to go. Regarding source–text integrity, I think that issue was specifically limited to the quote used for ALT0. I randomly selected a few sources from the remainder of the article, and they seemed to check out. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

For now, Epicgenius, I've removed all of the unreferenced films and the tv show. I'll add things back in as I find references for them. Silverseren^C 21:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say this is good to go, then. Epicgenius (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)