Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cannibal Holocaust

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Cannibal Holocaust edit

Self Nomination I have followed the model of several other featured articles about movies, and I have included most present information about Cannibal Holocaust. It covers most aspects and information surrounding Cannibal Holocaust, I believe it is in a neutral point of view, it has several (30+) reliable sources, and is written in a comprehensible and formal tone. There are no copyright issues for images or sound files, and it has a well-written introduction. Helltopay27 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment woah.-BiancaOfHell 20:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's what I thought the first time I saw it. 70.226.12.49 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at least one ref to EW.com needs to be fixed, as it appears to reference the entire website rather than an artcle. Please include the article title and retrieval date in case the link stops working one day. I'm about to read this though. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I fixed the EW.com reference, including the access date (which was already present). I also truncated the synopsis slightly. Helltopay27 00:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after a copyedit; it's a compelling read. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to oppose after some of my copyediting was inexplicably undone- in the plot summary, "executives" was changed back to the slangy "execs" and the sentence "The group’s first encounter with each tribe is the death of a Yanomamo woman" was restored- I don't think one group's encounter with another can be the death of an unrelated third person. You'd say that during the encounter, the death was seen or witnessed, or stood out.CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Sorry about that... I had to trim the summary down to less that 1000 words to avoid fair use issues and forgot about your changes. I'm correcting your copy-edits. EDIT: Your changes have been restored. If you still object to some copyedits, I'd be willing to change them. Helltopay27 16:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The gory stills, especially the one of the impaled woman, are very explicit, and I don't see that it's really necessary to actually use it in the article. I don't recall seeing any articles on pornographic films being illustrated with penetration footage, and as far as I'm concerned this is far more offensive. / Peter Isotalo 14:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The "stills" assist the article by depicting information visually, like every other article with pictures. The impalement scene is one of the most famous scenes in the movie, and it is highly talked about in the article. Also, the burning of the hut has no explicit gore, and the piranha photo has gore, but very little. Wikipedia even has disclaimers about upsetting content, and so I feel your argument lacks merit. Helltopay27 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy. Helltopay27 18:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm aware of the fact that Wikipedia shouldn't practice self-censorship, but the actual application of that guideline is in reality fairly restrictive. For example, the "depictions of human anatomy" generally don't go beyond neutral depictions of genitalia or drawn softcore illustrations of various sexual acts (which might be very difficult to imagine without those images). And while I am not a fan of any kind of moralization, I understand the real world attitudes that make such an interpretation necessary.
      And we're talking brutal, speculative, photo-realistic, sexualized gore in this case; a bloody, naked woman impaled through the ass. It's extreme! Allowing such imagery in an article that would eventually be featured on the main page would be too liberal a stance. It's not remotely comparable to what is otherwise tolerated, and there's already two non-photographic depictions of the scene in the article (the poster and the soundtrack cover). It's definitely not necessary to clarify anything other than its being horribly explicit, which is explained in some detail in prose. I think this should be solved by external linking to stills, like at Deep Throat (film). / Peter Isotalo 07:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Who says it'll go on the main page? That's for Raul to decide. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Deep Throat isn't featured, but it still doesn't have a single shot of deep throating, even though the entire film evolves around it. Same thing goes for Basic Instinct where Sharon Stone's infamous crotch shot is clearly absent. And why not compare this with Salò, where at least a modicum of moderation has been applied to the choice of illustrations. What we're talking about here isn't notable because it's intended as social commentary, high art or even satire or parody; it's just gratuitous violence for shock value. And, again, it's already depicted twice in the article somewhat more stylized. So what's the point of displying it other than... well... extending that shock value? / Peter Isotalo 13:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I've found an image that is a good compromise. Helltopay27 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Still fairly gruesome, but it does seem acceptable for our purposes. Objection stricken. And a fine job in writing the article overall, I might add. With some of the additions and tweaks already suggested, I believe the article should considered to be of FA quality. Support. / Peter Isotalo 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments. I just noticed that the citations are burdened with a lot of redundancy both in terms of repeated use of the same footnotes and the applications of ref tags and citations templates:
    • The lead, even though it's supposed to be a summary of the entire article, is heavily cited, which doesn't make all that much sense, since all these facts appear in greater detail (with the same sources) later in the article. One source is used 4 times in just 3 sentences.
      • In "Production", the first paragraph cites the same source three times, even though it's the only one being used. Another repetition can be found in the last paragraph.
      • "Original Italian controversy" really only uses the same two footnotes (with one exception) throughout the entire section, but repeats them over and over, often in tandem. It would have basically no effect on the verifiability if they were reduced to one of each and placed at the end of the section.
      • Similar repetitions can be found in "Film influence" and "Releases and sequels".
    • Instead of using the <ref name="xyz"/> for repeated use of the same footnote, the full source info, including the bulky citation template, is used. / Peter Isotalo 16:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response I had thought of that, but it would inevitably lead to people saying that there weren't enough citations, or some people would put [citation needed] down where there weren't citations. EDIT: I've eliminated "redundant" sources, but if someone starts on with how there aren't enough, I'll change them back. Helltopay27 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now due to prose issues, for example:
    • Several instances of things like 'Another controversial aspect is that...', 'An irony is that...' - ugh.
    • 'Production began in 1979, when director Ruggero Deodato was contacted by "the Germans"' - what Germans? This is the first time Germans are mentioned in the text. What they contacted him about is also unclear.
    • 'but in order to keep it as an Italian film' - redundancy, but also unclear why two Italian actors make it an Italian film. Casting details in general read as strung-together bits of information.
    • 'Among others, actress Francesca Ciardi also had some unpleasant experiences' - not sure why she merits her own paragraph, but this is an awkward sentence in any case.
    • 'it was in the actors' contracts that they were not allowed in any type of media' - contracts with whom? Did the eventual appearance break the contracts, or was the clause dropped?
    • Why was it re-banned in NZ in 2006, and why is that a stuck-in parenthetical?
    • 'With the laxing of cinematic standards in recent years...' - 'to lax' shouldn't be a verb, and this sentence doesn't seem to mean anything. Does it intend to point to laxity of standards for content censorship?
    • Interpretations section lists a lot of possible interpretations as if they are fact, immediately after quoting Deodato that the interpretations are overstretched.
    • Generally, the text repeatedly refers to 'Ruggero Deodato'; we know who he is by now and you can just say 'Deodato'. Opabinia regalis 01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response I believe I've resolved each point that you've made.Helltopay27 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I no longer actively object to this article, but I'm not at the point of supporting either, due to prose and clarity issues. The final sentence in the plot synposis uses the first-person plural, not encyclopedic in tone; 'long time Italian horror screenwriter' needs a hyphen; 'Still, things were not in the clear yet' is a lame transition; '...usually because of unkind remarks from Deodato' - things aren't objectively unkind; presumably this was someone's observation and shouldn't be presented in the text as fact. I appreciate the attempt at clarification but I still don't understand why a film had to have a nationality (who imposed this requirement?) or why two actors who speak Italian make it an Italian film (when apparently all the actors who spoke English didn't make it a film of their nationality). Similarly, the circumstances of the actors' contracts - who they were with and why they weren't waived when the director was facing imprisonment. Opabinia regalis 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just came across a great article that addresses the nationality issue and explains not only why the films required a nationality, but what called for the nationality criteria (it was under Italian law, as a matter of fact). This information has been added into the article and should no longer be a problem. Also, I mentioned the contracts - they were with Deodato and the film's producers, and they were waived to avoid life in prison. Lastly, tell me exactly where the hyphen should be and I'll add it. Helltopay27 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added the hyphen. I like the explanation about the nationality stuff now. In the controversy section, the article says 'Disregarding the contracts that the actors had signed with him in order to avoid life in prison, Deodato brought the foursome onto the set of an Italian television show' (btw, television show probably doesn't need linking). That implies to me that Deodato and the actors deliberately went against contracts that were still in force. If that's not the case, that sentence should be reworded. Opabinia regalis 05:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Since Deodato was the holder of the contract, he was able to declare it void. If this is ambiguous, I'll change it. Helltopay27 16:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Opabinia regalis makes several good points on the prose; in addition the plot section is too long and delves into trivial details.--Peta 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I site Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, which is a featured article with almost 200 more words in its synopsis. Helltopay27 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Episode II has a fairly complex plot compared to this film. The blow by blow summary in this article accounts for about 1/4 - 1/3 of the length of the article and raises issues of fair use.--Peta 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I must agree with Peta. The Star Wars films have a fully-developed background story and a very complicated mythology behind them. There's nothing like that in CH. / Peter Isotalo 13:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have narrowed the plot synopsis from 1101 words to 946 words. I think the trimming is adequate. Helltopay27 19:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Object It's on the right track but it needs some work still. My main concern is the writing, it's clunky, and needs to be copy edited for flow (I would even recommend rearranging the sections into a more natural order), the prose tightened up and redundancies eliminated. Also, the main sources for information seem to be the DVD supplements and reviews, which lends the article an anecdotal feel. I can understand the Cannibal Holocaust book being difficult to track down but surely it being such a notorious film there must be others that cover the topic. The horror community is large. Plus some other small things I'll list:
    • The first three inline citations are repeated under Interpretations and should be removed from the lead.
    • Citation 2 is IMDb user comments which is not a reliable source. I understand the point you're trying to make with it but it's already adequately covered with the other two citations that sandwich it.
    • There's no mention of how well the film did. It's implied that it has a following and one can infer that it did well, as most controversial films do, from all the sequels and such but it's not stated explicitly. It's well known but how big is the fanbase?
    • The images are not great quality. I remember the DVD I saw was bad so I can't fault you for that but making them bigger, not in the article, but so that one can click on it to see a larger picture would be helpful. Also, Wikipedia has the option for users to set individual default picture display sizes so if anyone has it set above 250 these won't do them any good. I'd make them at least 300px.
    • Unless you're planning to update the IMDb rating in the userbox for the rest of your life, I'd lose that. The IMDb is one click away making its use here of little value.
    • The first two paragraphs in Plot start with "the film" which is grammatically undesirable.
    • It was a sea turtle, wasn't it?
    • Beginning in the plot with Professor Monroe, and continued throughout the article especially with the director, people, seemingly at random, are referred to by their full name, then last name and back again. Use the full name once and then stick with he/she or the last name. This isn't a solid rule so there are exceptions but some pruning is in order here.
    • The transitions in the plot can be tightened up, for example "Back in the film," can be "In the film". Later, "Deodato, the film's producers and screenwrite, and the representative from United Artists" should be "Deodato, the producers, screenwriter and the United Artists representative". Who else's producers would it be?
    • There are some typos, "the film reels then end" (should be "ends"), "screenwrite" and "rain forest" is one word.
    • Citation 9 is the IMDb's trivia section which is stretching it reliability-wise. Plus, assuming the production start date was there at one point, it isn't anymore.
    • A lot of the wikilinks need to be DABed.
    • The tense fluctuates, most of it is past tense and then suddenly the director "would also spend three additional years" in court.
    • The reality TV and irony bits read like WP:OR and need sources.
    • Lose all of the year in film links, expect the first one, as they're low value. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
    • The Controvery section should not have a subheading with controversy in the title.
    • BBFC should probably be spelled out in full once and definitely should not be wikilinked three times in the same paragraph.
    • Since all of the countries cannot be wikilinked to "Cinema of" articles, and because it's more the government than the film industry doing the banning, I would direct them all to the main country articles.
    • "A pig is kicked and then killed with a rifle when shot in the head by an actor." Didn't I read somewhere that the actor didn't shoot the pig himself? And that can be tightened up especially as it's in a list of animals that are killed. Perhaps, "kicked and shot with a rifle".
    • "Documentary" links to Mondo film (which is misleading) and then "Mondo" links to Mondo film in the next sentence.
    • There must be some reviews of the soundtrack, I'm not sure it qualifies as OR but surely there are some sources out there.
    • Releases should be Home video or DVD releases.
    • Natura Contro is wikilinked twice in the same sentence (under different names).
    • The See also section can be removed, all the links are included in the article except Cannibal boom which should be added under Influence (a little expansion about the sequels wouldn't hurt too.)
    • Citation 30 is a repeat of citation 19.
    • I'm unclear what the Deodato's involvement with Hostel: Part II is.
    • The References are of an inconsistent style. Some have the last name first, some don't. Some are "Retrieved on" with a wikilinked date, others only have an unwikilinked date. Sometimes Cannibal Holocaust is italicized, other times it's in all caps even when the actual linked article doesn't title it that way.
  • Finally, is there no information on how long the production and post-production were? Any audience reactions? Any protests? Anyway, it's a very good article. I've listed a lot of points but these are all fixable, I think. Keep at it. Doctor Sunshine talk 05:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The first three inline citations are repeated under Interpretations and should be removed from the lead."
      • It's a weasel-worded statement that should keep its sources (or at least that's what I've read in Wikipedia's guidelines).
      • "It was a sea turtle, wasn't it?"
      • No, it wasn't. Why do you ask?
      • "The images are not great quality. I remember the DVD I saw was bad so I can't fault you for that but making them bigger, not in the article, but so that one can click on it to see a larger picture would be helpful. Also, Wikipedia has the option for users to set individual default picture display sizes so if anyone has it set above 250 these won't do them any good. I'd make them at least 300px."
      • Site Wikipedia's fair use policy regarding images: images must be of low-resolution and of inferior quality to the original.
      • "The References are of an inconsistent style. Some have the last name first, some don't. Some are "Retrieved on" with a wikilinked date, others only have an unwikilinked date. Sometimes Cannibal Holocaust is italicized, other times it's in all caps even when the actual linked article doesn't title it that way."
      • This is because of how the citation template is formatted.
      • "Releases should be Home video or DVD releases."
      • I site Jaws, which is from where I decided to format that particular header.Helltopay27 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work. You're right, that is a bit weasel wordish. I'd recommend changing it to "some critics" and removing "important" as I haven't seen anyone claim it's a great insight but I have seen a number say it's heavy-handed. Then you should be able to make the lead citation free.
  • I noticed some of the images came from here. Rather than listing the DVD as the source, the internet site should be used.
  • All citation templates allow for "lastname, first name" usage.
  • I'm going to change my vote to comment for now. I still feel the prose can be improved and the article isn't as comprehensive as it could be. A Google Books search didn't turn up anything substantial but browsing through reviews and various websites shows that there's more information to be had. Namely, it could be contextualized further within the cannibal genre, details about the filmmaking, audience reactions and responses. I didn't find any wellsprings of information in my Google searching but I'll check out some other cultish FAs and see how they handle information gathering and then reconsider my vote. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then you should be able to make the lead citation free."
  • "Some critics" is still a weasel worded statement (in fact, it's one of the examples on Wikipedia:Weasel words). Other than that, I think I can fix everything you've mentioned. UPDATE: I've added a section on the reaction (box office and critical response).


  • Comment (maybe opinion later):Changing to Support after re-reading. Very thorough, probably the best that can be done about this film.
    • "Production began ... making a film "like Cannibal Holocaust."" How could the whole thing start making a film like itself?
    • The Yanomamo seem to be an actual tribe. How about explaining whether they are or are not actually cannibals? Similarly, specify whether the Shamatari and Yacumo are real, and the extent to which they are accurately portrayed.
    • The star, Robert Kerman, is rather more famous for a certain other stage name and film. Mention?
    • "a cruelty previously unknown me" seems awkward phrasing - is that an accurate quote? Is he a native English speaker?
    • What's the source for the budget estimate?
    • Reference 11 (Geleng) has a "Retrieved on" but no link? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "'Production began ... making a film "like Cannibal Holocaust."' How could the whole thing start making a film like itself?
      • That's a direct quote from Deodato; they wanted a film "like Cannibal Holocaust," that is, like what would be the final product of Cannibal Holocaust, even though they didn't know what it was.
      • The star, Robert Kerman, is rather more famous for a certain other stage name and film. Mention?
      • I'm not sure how that would be relevant (his connection with Deodato has already been mentioned), but I'll add it somewhere if you see it fit.
      • "'...a cruelty previously unknown me' seems awkward phrasing - is that an accurate quote? Is he a native English speaker?"
      • That's a typo on my part. Also, after watching the program again, the quote is slightly off. It has been corrected.
      • "What's the source for the budget estimate?"
      • The "In the Jungle" program. Since it was in the infobox, I didn't really notice it. It's been corrected.
      • "Reference 11 (Geleng) has a "Retrieved on" but no link?"
      • There's a link, but it's on the next line down (at least it is on my browser).
        • It reads: {{cite video | people = Gelend, Antonio (interviewee) | year = 2003 | title = In the Jungle: The Making of Cannibal Holocaust | accessdate = 2007-02-10 | medium = Documentary | location = Italy | publisher = Alan Young Pictures}} There's an accessdate= field but no url= field. Also don't forget the part about the actual tribes; calling them cannibals is rather severe, and needs to be specified true (and if so, cited) or not. I don't know if an entire tribe can sue for libel, but if they can, they could have a case ... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "url" field is only for the IMDb entry, and that's only if there is no Wikipedia article for the program. Since there is neither, the "url" field should be blank (cite Template:Cite video). Helltopay27 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then so should the accessdate field. That's for when the URL was accessed, not for when you watched the video! The point is that "we guarantee this URL was good at such a time". The video won't change since the accessdate, the URL may well go away. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah, crap, it appears you're right. I'm correcting that, and I've also added information about the tribes under Production. Helltopay27 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks, supporting. One last nitpick - you write that many unofficial sequels were made: can you name a few, and/or provide a reference so that people who are interested can look for them? --14:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Under the Controversy section of the article, i found the "moral crusaders" comment to be somewhat biased and non-neutral. Thats all i noticed wrong with the article. I dont think that just because some people would like to sensor the movie means they are crusaders neccessarily. RRM MBA 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Changed to moral activists. Helltopay27 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Compelling article. Makes me want to see the film again and read all of those sources. --Myles Long 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cannibal_Holocaust&oldid=1175354628"