Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road

Australian in lead

While the source does back up that the film is Australian, it ignores other sources that describe it as an Australian and American co-production.

Per MOS:FILM, if the film is of multiple production entry items then we don't list them in that format as it was in the lead, so this is why it was removed twice. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the AFI and the BFI articles in the infobox cite the project as both a Australian and American co-production, not just Australian Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Per Mosfilm, Nationality is defined by the reliable sources - such as being called an “Australian film” - as Hollywood Reporter, a highly reputable American source, does in the citation, as well as explaining why. That a few companies from other nations were involved in the production doesn’t justify changing the descriptor, per OR/SYNYH, without reliable citations directly describing the film in a different way. This has been discussed on this talk page before and the current description represents the current, and long-standing, consensus. MapReader (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I don't think THR's "Mad Max: Fury Road is considered an Australian film as it meets the Australian government's thresholds for tax rebates and government support, was made largely by an Australian crew and had Australian creative control." statement is against the AFI, BFI and NYT, and saying that it's solely an Australian film and therefore is just produced by AUえーゆー. I also don't see any consensus on this issue, there is an archived section where it's mostly you two discussing. ภץאคгöร 21:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the BFI or AFI data tables (they’re not written articles) describe the film directly; they just list out the credits and contain an entry for the nationalities of entities involved with the film. We do the same in our article’s infobox. Nevertheless in RS the film is widely described as an Australian one, and citation does need to be direct. MapReader (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

you say widely and provide a single source. This isn't about loose jargon as the article you've cited points out, it's about being technically true. Also, please don't remove maintenance tags until the issue is addressed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are two further sources that counter it, , Screen Daily which only provides United States and Sight & Sound which describes it as an Australian and United States co-production. Even the Government Classification of the film states Fury Road as an "Australia United States" co-production here. So this "widely described" is bunk. MOS:FILMCOUNTRY does indeed state "If the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film)" than it should be labeled as such. This is however not the case per the status above. Per WP:WEIGHT, I think we should stick with assuming it's not strictly Australian, as that would be misleading. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those sources actually describe the film. You’re synthesising from infoboxes. MapReader (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

What are they describing then? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Who knows what criteria they use? Maybe based on the financing, maybe based on the credited contributing companies; it doesn't really matter, as WP works from direct citation, not by synthesising from another website's criteria. MapReader (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter is clearly an authoritative and highly reliable source, and explicitly describes this as an "Australian film".[1] That it's a non-Australian source gives it extra weight, as we all know that national sources are often keen to take credit for any national involvement. Yet here's a US business media source, reporting film critics deciding the film as "the best Australian film of the 21st century"[2]; here's an Australian media site with additional commentary as to why it's regarded as an Australian film[3], also from a leading Australian news broadcaster[4]; here's an authoritative UK media source[5], here's an article from Variety[6], from the BFI[7], from India[8], more from Hollywood Reporter[9], from MSN[10], from NME - originally a UK magazine but now Singaporean-owned[11], from the US movie site Movieweb[12], from central Maine[13], Time Out magazine[14], even an English-language article published in Iran[15]. There are of course tons of further Australian sources. FWIW (which isn't that much), IMDb has Australia down as the country of origin.

As to why it's widely seen as an Australian film, that isn't really our concern as editors; our duty is simply to follow the sources. But the first linked Hollywood Reporter article is explicit and persuasive on the point. Mad Max is regularly described as an iconic Australian film series. The 'Australian' descriptor was put into the article by its original creator twelve years back, and is now long-standing and relatively stable, aside from occasional periods of chopping and changing usually from IP edits. MapReader (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said THR is unreliable and not authoritative. But what every commenting editor here so far has been pointing out is that the film is not just an Australian production as evidenced by multiple sources. "national sources are often keen to take credit for any national involvement." is your opinion and the same can be said for the AUえーゆー sources as well. Some of the sources you have added refer to the series as a whole, some are low quality and one is from a dubious/unreliable source called "Taste of Cinema" (but you wrote it as Time Out). IMDb is also unreliable. Do they state that Fury Road is only an Australian film? I don't see it. ภץאคгöร 14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with Nyaxros above. Most if not all the Mad Max films are Australian. That is not the question, and speaking colloquially, most writings are not going to describe film as an "Australian-American production" in prose as that's a mouthful and also not helpful in the context. For example, if Fury Road broke records for an Australian production, they'd call it an Australian production, because listing it as an Australian one. Some sources you listed seem to be talking about its follow-up, not this film in question (see [https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/500946/Art-Garden-Pavilion-to-screen-review-George-Miller-s-Furiosa here). I feel like this is a constant need for editors to just search out their opinion and then base it in facts, but referring to the the film as simply Australian in casual terms is not wrong per se, but it would be just as misleading to say there was only one production company involved because you, I, or anyone found an article that only went into discussing one production companies involvement. Saying "Who knows?" to my response, suggests you aren't aware that the Country in country of production is generally based on the where production funds come from, not from cultural or identities. So simply saying THR is superior, is not really a valid take as suggesting the British Film Institute or the several other sources such as Screen Daily or Sight & Sound are wrong. All other editors here have basically come to the same conclusion on this as well. If you think this isn't a valid way of categorizing a films nationality, I'd suggest taking it up as a larger scale deal at WP:FILM instead of here, as this is something that would be grander than just one film beyond Hollywood here or there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the sources, cited directly, and not based on editor-constructed argumentation. As per FILMLEAD, " If the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film)...", thus how the film is CALLED is the central question. Such sources widely describe the film as Australian, and I haven't seen many that use phrases such as "international co-production" or "American-Australian", because that's not how it is seen. That - to use your words - "the Mad Max films are Australian" is precisely the point, and really the argument ends there. MapReader (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you are saying it "ends there" as we go by consensus on the talk page. You are definitely misinterpreting my words as I said that was used casually, it's not a serious view as that's not how films are referred to in casual terminology. Take a look at O' Horten which has several production countries. Nobody trying to write readable prose would list every single production company unless just making a point of how many there were. Again, your sources you've provided included IMDb and some were referring to the sequel. I appreciate this, but instead of ignoring the content I provide, I think you've addressed that the MOS:FILM is probably not in line with how most editors have been editing and categorizing films. I'll let other editors step in to suggest a consensus (@Erik:? @Betty Logan:? As they have come to the conclusion that just because one reliable source only refers to one country, it does not disinclude the other. Not to mention you haven't really addressed some of the dubious sources you've provided otherwise and some that just are not even talking about this production. I'm not sure what else you want as I've suggested several alternatives to take this to try and appease your issue, but you seem more interested in shutting down conversation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The other key factor of the MOS:FILM states "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." Which is probably how this should be handled. I think the statements above make it clear, it's not just an Australian production. Even if it may be casually referred to as one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see Lumiere mentioned, and this has been used before for determining if a film's so-called nationality is singular. Judging from their page for this film here, the co-producing countries are AUえーゆー and US. With this and the above evidence, I don't think it's appropriate to classify this film as singularly Australian in the first sentence. The Australian and US involvement should be fleshed out later in the lead section. Leave the first sentence clear of nationality and if there is consensus, including "English-language" instead to at least establish some cultural context. (I know that's uncommon, but I think that's a reasonable alternative when multiple countries are in play.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the number of sources describing the United States as co-producing country is fairly significant. Just because a source describes it as an Australian film in a particular context, does not preclude consideration of the other sources. I don't see any fundamental difference between THR describing is as an "Australian film" and Lumiere using the term "Producing country". I agree that care should be taken to avoid outliers, but AFI, BFI & Lumiere appear to all be in agreement that this was a joint production between two countries. Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Not if none of them state that explicitly, as per STICKTOTHESOURCE. MapReader (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the guideline. If a source labels the nationality of a film a "producing country" or "country of origin" then that is "explicit" identification of the film's nationality. I do not accept that for a claim to be "explicit" we have to find one that literally states "XXX is an Australian-American film". There are different ways of saying the same thing. Wikipedia is in the business of souring facts, not expressions. What we want to avoid is implicit identification of a film's nationality i.e. an editor attempting to identify a film's nationality on the basis of where the film was made, or where the production companies are based. We require a source to explicitly make that connection, which is certainly true in the case Mad max: Fury Road and US involvement. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

But that is exactly that would be happening by trying to infer something from a data table that doesn’t explicitly describe the nationality of the film. Hiring in firms from various countries doesn’t make it a co-production if the overall creative control is not being shared, and it’s only a co-production if reliable sources explicitly say that it’s a co-production; not because a WP editor has decided to interpret a data table in a particular way. MapReader (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

MapReader, if you could give any decipher able meaning one would get from those countries, I'd be very interested to hear it. As for your suggestion for a specific source, I've provided it in earlier conversations and will repost it here. I don't want to assume, but I don't think you are looking at sources we've provided. such as SMH. Which distinctly calls it an Australian-US production. Just as BFI and AFI do. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That one, I can’t read due to the paywall. In any event, it’s the overall balance of sources that matters. It’s also a wider issue than this single film, since both the Mad Max franchise article and the Mad Max film article refer to them as being Australian. It’s been that way for a very long time, and is therefore a well-established description. MapReader (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We aren't talking about that page. If you want to bring that up as a discussion there, be my guest, but by that standing, it seems you are comfortable confirming that this is indeed an Australian-US co-production. I would love to move on, but I'm struggling to gauge what rules we'd be breaking now to if I've provided several sources and basically all other users within this discussion seem to be leaning towards the Australian-US co-production status.

To quote the article for you that is blocked "Mad Max: Fury Road, an Australian-US production, is up for three awards including best direction for George Miller, and The Dressmaker is a contender, with a nod for Judy Davis in the best supporting actress category. Both films dominated the Australian AACTAs in December 2015." Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, here's the discussion that led to the MOS addition: WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 9#Nationality in lead sentence

Some fair points were argued about "creative control" and how that can be totally separate from production company origin and funding, so we have to be careful about applying our own interpretations when we see multiple companies listed in these categories. Co-production may or may not mean co-nationality depending on the way the term nationality is being defined. Different industries/sources may look at it from various viewpoints, and some sources may not even consider "creative control" as a factor and loosely apply country labels as a result.

I think I'm in the camp that supports stating the nationality of a film in situations where it is abundantly clear there is no disagreement or ambiguity among sources. And when it comes to determining the best sources, I'd consider verbatim statements in high-quality sources (e.g. "X is an American film" published by Variety) – a clear form of secondary analysis – to be a step above a chart or table that only lists the country (or countries) under a category like "production". --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd generally agree. I think applying country of production is complicated in more general terms as different countries (and even different film archives) seem to go by different standards, and when it comes to Award season items, it grows complicated when countries push for what is considered a film from a specific country gets muddied when we value everything. I wonder if applying rules like we do with language might be best. I.e: a film that has strong ties to Australia like this one uses Australian English, we can try to base it in how that country perceives if their addition is valid. This sounds like an excessive amount of work for new articles, and I think it would potentially help out things. Then again, if we have two countries listed and neither seem to agree, I'm not sure what the task is to take. Its a tremendously convoluted issue in all honesty and I feel like there is not going to be any mass solution that eases all complicated ways of looking at it without some major overhaul and leg work by several editors. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm with you. As others indicated in the 2013 discussion, the guidance behind MOS:FILMCOUNTRY may be giving too much importance to a film's nationality, describing it as an element that should be discussed in some capacity in the lead – either in the opening sentence or later on. But there's a 3rd option to consider: save this less important aspect for the body, especially when you encounter one of the following situations:

1. More than one reputable source disagrees (describes the nationality differently)
2. Unclear description of nationality in the source; ambiguity (e.g., chart/table listing "production" countries or "funding" entities)
3. Possible bias (even in the absence of disagreement)

If a potentially controversial nationality claim must be included in some form, use proper in-text attribution to tie any uncertainty directly to a reputable source. My 2¢ -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Just as heads up @GoneIn60:, I've opened up that conversation more exclusively on the MOS:FILM talk page to clarify it further. As we're kind of dancing between two conversations, probably best to repost, or expand on those thoughts there as we kind of want to tackle the individual Fury Road discussion here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Certainly it’s a potentially complicated issue; this article, although about TV, is a useful overview of some of the emerging issues[16]. But the point you are not taking on board is that WP side-steps much of this by relying on direct citation. It isn’t up to us to come up with ‘rules’ or to go analysing what the infoboxes in other websites might mean or even consider anything that would be “an excessive amount of work”; we should STICKTOSOURCE and consider citations only that explicitly state whatever it is that is in the article. In relation to this film, while I haven’t been able to access your earlier link I don’t dispute that you have found a citation that refers to it being a co-production; the fact remains however that there are heavyweight citations supporting the Australian descriptor, which was inserted into this article at first creation almost a decade ago, and reflects the same approach taken by the other WP articles about Mad Max and the series of films. MapReader (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, you can view that "earlier link" here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A closer look at the sources

I'm not sure how this was missed, but I think MapReader has a very strong case here:

• "making it the most-nominated Australian film in Oscar history" ... "Fury Road is considered an Australian film...was made largely by an Australian crew and had Australian creative control."

→ THR (15 Jan 2016)

• "This year marks the first time we've seen an Australian film, Mad Max: Fury Road, win at our domestic awards in Sydney and then again at our International Awards in L.A., and we’re delighted...," said AACTA and AFI CEO Damian Trewhella.

→ Variety (29 Jan 2016)

• "...profoundly influenced a particular strand of Australian film, which combines dystopian and noir themes...Many of these films have similar aesthetic elements...share cast members, vividly illustrated by the presence of Hugh Keays-Byrne,...who also stars as Immortan Joe in Mad Max: Fury Road."

→ British Film Institute (14 May 2015)

• "Screen Australia has invoked the 'Gallipoli clause'...to allow the film to still qualify as Australian" ... "A full Australian crew picks up and goes [to Namibia] to shoot the desert scenes, and comes back here to do other scenes, then all the post-production and digital work is done here."

→ The Australian Financial Review (25 Nov 2011)

• "Fury Road was the No. 1 Australian film at the local box office this year"

→ THR (9 Dec 2015)

• Screen Australia, the Australian govt's agency that oversees the film industry officially classifies Fury Road as an Australian film.

These are some heavy hitters from the likes of Variety, two from THR, secondary analysis straight from the mouth of AFI's CEO, an article published by BFI, and a listing on Screen Australia. I think these are pretty reputable and strong enough to override any concerns I previously had about labeling this an Australian film. At the VERY LEAST, this should satisfy inclusion in the body, but I think both the lead and body (with sources) would be fine. We have to remember that some funding from an American production company might get "US" placed in a category in a few databases, but what REALLY matters is the interpretation of the data, which we get from WP:SECONDARY analysis and evaluation in sources like the ones quoted above. Those are a step above categorical database listings. Co-production does NOT necessarily equate to co-nationality. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. This is the big picture that Andrzejbanas has been avoiding; there's a whole series (almost a genre) of film that's been labelled Australian for many years. I may be the only editor defending the status quo here right now, but the edit history of these batch of articles goes back more than a decade, and none of these edits were mine originally. There's a pertinent reference in that TV article I linked to above to a category of productions that are "International co-productions that keep most creative control in the hands of one country’s TV production team. (This includes shows like Sherlock, Downton Abbey, and Hannibal.)" where the same consideration applies - Downton Abbey is clearly a British production, and widely described as such, despite PBS having put up 10-15% of the money and had some minor involvement in the casting. MapReader (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a series is identified as anything for years or minutes or decades. Various interpretations of films as genre, what constitutes nationality or cultural esthetic changes, or even what is considered a quality film changes as years go by. They are not constant and it would be plainly ignorant to think otherwise. I think @GoneIn60: has done a lot of great research here. In context, several of these sources are looking for classification as an Australian production. Solid. I have little to no doubt the product is at least partially an Australian production (with only the odd Screen Daily article suggesting otherwise). That does not disengage that the context of all these articles that referring to the film casually as "Australian" does not disengage it from being a hybrid of both countries. As provided by the SMH and Sight & Sound articles, above, it is indeed referred to both and reading a source referring to as "Australian" does not an equivalent of saying the databases or the other publications are incorrect or should be ignored. As we've all worked on film articles, we know its very rare that films are referred casually as products of many countries in more casual sentences. So MapReader is correct in that the film is Australian, but that does not mean the other sources are "wrong" or should be ignored as several sources that MOS:FILM suggests to use should be ignored. I'd love more details the actual details of this, but so far my research (and outside people googling and finding terminology tossed around loosely), nobody has found anything more concrete outside personal beliefs. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

As I was thinking about it over lunch, I think the sources saying simply "Australian" as listed above would hold more weight if they could go into detail about what made the film specifically Australian. Most do not seem to do this with the possible exception of "The Australian Financial Review" referencing article, and even that one seems to make it sound like "well its technically Australian", which sort of sounds like the article author says this was all bureaucratic. Without context to what made it specifically "Australian" in these texts, I'm honestly leaning towards them being no more strong than a database entry in the long run. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"Without context to what made it specifically "Australian" in these texts..."

While I appreciate your process working through this, I'm not sure where you're getting stuck at this point. The first cited THR source above provides the context you're saying doesn't exist. They clearly state how they arrive at their determination of calling this an Australian film: 1) meets the Australian government’s thresholds for tax rebates and government support, 2) was made largely by an Australian crew and 3) had Australian creative control. They even dedicate two more paragraphs to Screen Australia's chief Graeme Mason, who calls Fury Road an "invaluable calling card for Australian-led, international productions" and goes on to describe the impact to the Australian film industry.

The coverage in the BFI source is COMPLETELY surrounded by context, and the AFI CEO quote in Variety is pointing out a significant fact. These are not "casual" passing mentions of "Australian" in any way, shape, or form. These are in-depth declarations with explanations. The Sight and Sound source you keep harking back to is a short review excerpt published on BFI that doesn't address the film's classification in prose. It's nothing more than a database classification that lists "Australia/USA" under country, but as I've already pointed out, a database is a primary source statistic. We prefer secondary source analysis when determining how to refer to a film in prose, and for that we see that many of the best secondary sources are primarily calling the film Australian. It's really that simple. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No sorry, I appreciate you for clarifying some details. I'm a bit confused by some of them such as "Australian-led, international productions". What is meant by this? Is this for productions made for global audiences or potentially, the Australian-US co-prodution detail that we've alluded to elsewhere? I think the casual references were more in terms with MapReader's initial batch of sources. The BFI source in question you are quoting is referring to the a legacy of the series, not specifically to Fury Road. Your quote of "...profoundly influenced a particular strand of Australian film" is referring to the Mad Max from the 1970s, not to Fury Road. So again, if we cut and paste some sentences here and there, we get a bit of bits and bobs, but I'd honestly land that BFI quote as you've editied as greatly misleading to what we are trying to arrive at here. And while the THR source does say it qualifies as an Australian production which isn't really under question, it does not disqualify it as being a joint-production. It even goes as far to state "Mad Max: Fury Road is considered an Australian film as it meets the Australian government’s thresholds for tax rebates and government support, was made largely by an Australian crew and had Australian creative control. Produced by Kennedy Miller Mitchell, RatPac-Dune Entertainment and Village Roadshow Pictures, it was distributed by Warner Bros." The latter two, are American companies and I can't imagine why they would be brought up if only to configure that yes, production companies are the a figure in identifying the nationality of a production. I don't want that to be a "gimmie" or anything, but again, these sources don't do anything to suggest the Australian-US item is wrong, and some sources here again are quoted misleadingly, which I'm going to assume good faith on, but its not really helping the argument at hand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I believe I see where the confusion is setting in, and you can also see this back in that 2013 discussion linked way above in the discourse between Ring Cinema and Betty. The nationality of a film is not singularly defined by its "production company", so you must look beyond that statistic. Other factors such as "creative control" and being "largely in the hands of citizens or residents of that country" (as argued in that discussion). Point is that the way nationality is defined can vary, which is why we must look for secondary analysis as has been sufficiently achieved here.

The BFI source quoted above was chopped up, but if you read that paragraph in full, it describes the characteristics of Australian films and mentions Fury Road among them. It was chopped to save space, but it can be quoted in full if you feel it makes a difference. There's no doubt the BFI article is applying those Australian film traits to Fury Road. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

As for "international production", he's likely referring to the involvement of international wings of companies such as Warner Bros, which in this case was used for the international distribution of this Australian film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, he could be! I immediately read international I read the Australian and another country, so that's up for debate. It could likey be anything as they were not specific. I'm really not sure how to channel this as the articles you have cited sort of toss on Fury Road as an after thought at the end (such as the BFI one). Specific cultural things are interpretations and seem to go back and forth against what we've got. For example, I've round an article in Metro titled "2015 Australian Cinema Goes Commercial". they have two thoughts on the topic and are probably the most in-depth on detail here I've come across. I'll quote it,

• "How far [Fury Road] remains an ‘Australian’ film is open to question: it is technically an Australian–US co-production; its leads are American (Theron) and British (Hardy, Nicholas Hoult), with some familiar Australian names in support, notably Hugh Keays-Byrne who was in the first Mad Max (George Miller, 1979); and much of it was filmed in Namibia, with some studio work undertaken in South Africa."

while also stating

• "In spite of these qualifications, it seems to be recognized as an essentially Australian production, and its effect on the commercial health of the local industry is undeniable."

I feel like depending on which side of the fence you are in, you could take either statement and say "that's the one.". While the other sources suggestion an "Australian-ness" to it, they aren't going into depth about it and they aren't focusing on the technical details either and both have value for our readers for various reasons. As this article seems to address our concerns, my suggestion would be to probably apply this source, and somewhere within the prose, note the interpretations both technical and how it was received and primarily "Australian" in general terms. I know nobody likes going on about this stuff on the talk page, but I feel like we're getting closer so thanks for anyone who continues to see this through. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sort of an unrelated comment, I think what we may be struggling with with just using a general assumption of "if it's called Australian enough times, we should apply that", is how this article uses the term "How far Fury Road remains an Australian film" is sort of key. Its hard to give it a blanket statement because its been used many times, as people are going to have different interpretations when it comes to qualifications. As we don't seem to have those on hand, these are all interpretations with vague boundaries, so what do they mean to any reader? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you have a pretty good grasp of what's needed to make a decision at this point, as would others as well if they made it to this point of the conversation. I don't think we need to get into the finer details and drag the debate out any longer. At the end of the day, if we want to describe the nationality of the film in prose, we need to look and see how the best reliable sources are doing that. And from what we've gathered so far, the overall trend shows "Australian film", not "Australian-US film" or "Australian-American film". That's the most simple, basic summary of the decision we're faced with as Wikipedia editors, because we are writing this in prose and many of those weaker sources do not have US or American written in prose to describe the type of film (note: there is a distinction between "production" and "film", which is why you might see a source say "Australian-US production" notably avoiding the phrase "Australian-US film").

In closing, I'll just say this. Secondary source analysis does not need to be (and usually will not be) unanimous. Completely normal to come across varying opinions. As Wikipedia editors, our job is to apply due weight and fairly represent the significant viewpoints. I believe that is accomplished by doing three things. List Australia and the US in the infobox for country, detail the varying viewpoints in the article body, and simply call the film by it's most dominant description in the lead, which is "Australian film". That's keeping it simple. Final thoughts from me. Good luck! --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why bringing new material to the table that actually addresses the concerns we've been addressing is chasing you away, but no real matter. I know the conversation is complicated and frustrating, but your suggestion goes against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." So listing countries there is not something I'd push for as conducive. As per WP:SOURCETYPES, "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." In this case, just listing it as "Australian" leaves context unclear and using a newspaper or industry magazine as a source makes it unclear for different readers who interpret nationality of a film differently. Would this be referring to technical details? or more in a general interpretation? This is why I suggest expanding on this. I feel just just citing some article that loosely attaches a countries name to a production would be a gross misinterpretation of how different audiences read these kind of categories.

My proposal is we apply WP:SOURCETYPES. Which states "Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." I'm proposing something somewhere simple as "Brian McFarlane of Metro described that Mad Max: Fury Road as being generally received as an Australian film, while technically being an Australian-US co-production. This addresses any confusion anyone would has, and has really been the only article so far that addresses the issue we've brought up about interpretation and technicality. While GoneIn60 has said that they are done with the topic. I'd like to ping @Erik:, @MapReader:, @Betty Logan: and @Nyxaros: to weigh in if they are able. Thanks for anyone seeking this out in the long haul. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"I'm not sure why bringing new material...is chasing you away"

"I know the conversation is complicated and frustrating, but..."

→ Andrzejbanas, Completely condescending and inaccurate. My decision to step away had everything to do with giving others a chance to weigh in and ZERO to do with that silly reasoning; don't give yourself too much credit. You need to review the talk page guidelines regarding "being concise" and how to "finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion", because every new reply you add is beginning to WP:BLUDGEON the process (which in actuality has already happened). Your most recent response to MapReader is a clear indication of this, wasting time bringing up IMDB, which does nothing to move the discussion forward...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Then you waste even more time with the distraction about "Australian film" being jargon needing special context per WP:AUDIENCE, but you know that's nonsense; it's a widely-occurring phrase in common literature (even evidenced above in this discussion!).

I'm not sure if you are purposely employing some form of WP:GAMING tactic to disrupt the consensus-building process, but you came within inches of a ban for sealioning less than 6 months ago. I strongly suggest you take a back seat moving forward. You've had plenty of time to share your thoughts. Patience here is running extremely thin. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I too find his responses difficult to cope with, as they focus on unimportant minor details, and a few days back were becoming quite unpleasant. I was wondering whether English isn’t his first language, as an explanation for lack of comprehension? But it is beginning to feel like GAMING; you are right that the reference to AUDIENCE was entirely gratuitous. MapReader (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Guys, per WP:CIVIL, we are supposed to discuss content, "Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks". Sealioning is an essay regardless and if there are rules I'm missing out on either this topic, please discuss it, I've been told rules I state don't apply, but my questions and points in the topic at hand have not been addressed. Whether it's asking why it doesn't apply. I will apologize to pointing out the IMDB note, I do get frustrated when I read through MapReaders sources and saw they were referring to content that did not back up their source. That was wrong of me. I'll give myself time to re-address this, and I suggest we do the same, but as you both are ignoring other editors who have found issues with you reasoning, please do not pin this on only me as, as that's just unfactual. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is definitely not the appropriate place to discuss behavioral issues in depth, but something needed to be said to prevent further derailment of this discussion (whether intentional or unintentional). Furthermore, no action in the article should be taken until the WP:CONTENTDISPUTE has reached a proper conclusion, either by consensus here (the discussion may need to be formally closed to determine consensus), or through another venue of escalation using dispute resolution. Saw a comment below implying that action would be taken before consensus is determined, so I'm clarifying now in case there is any confusion on how this works. Per WP:NOCON, the article should revert back to the last stable version prior to the discussion if there is no consensus. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The infobox, as it is, does summarise the information that is in the article. If the involvement of the relevant companies in body isn’t explicit enough, this can be clarified in the production section. But as far as the lead sentence goes, GoneIn60 has correctly identified that the long-standing Australian descriptor accurately reflects the balance of reliable sources, and is directly cited by an authoritative source, which (unusually for HR) also contains a supporting explanation. Applying words like “colloquial” or “casual” to sources like Hollywood Reporter, Variety and the Guardian might be your debating technique but it isn’t supported by any objective assessment; all three are highly reputable sources for media commentary. MapReader (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the Metro sums up the position succinctly. Fury Road is widely perceived as an Australian film, but this doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, and is probably due to the historical precedent of the Mad Max films. As the Metro correctly notes, it is only quasi-Australian (similar to the way that the post-60s James Bond films and the Harry Potter films are only quasi-British). It is firmly rooted in Australian culture (and there is nothing wrong in considering it Australian in those terms) but there are other considerations too. As the Metro notes, factually, it is an Australian-US production, shot in Africa, starring two non-Australian actors (the last doesn't matter so much IMO). In short, it is not exclusively an Australian film and it is misleading to present it as such, given that Wikipedia's job is to impart facts. The guidance gives adequate instruction for dealing with such matters: the article should not identify it in nationalist terms and should briefly summarise the different national components contributing to the production. Betty Logan (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Much of the commentary in that article isn’t really relevant - for example, since when did filming location or the nationality of the actors have any influence on how a film is described? That might be this Australian publication’s view (and ironically I notice that Metro describes itself as a publication about “Australasian and Pacific film”!), but that’s not the way WP works. There are tons of US films and TV series that use British actors, often in the lead role, but they’re still described as American. The misconception here is the suggestion that we should be doing lots of analysis, rather than following the sources. If there is interesting commentary about how the thematic material in the film is seen in the media and wider world, it could of course be added into the article - a discussion about how the film series and franchise are seen as Australian in origin and character would fit into the Mad Max article, for example, and could draw from the material various of us have cited above. MapReader (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the key factor MapReader you are missing is that what there Terms "Australian Film" mean to different audiences. To clarify your questions, Some people could interpret "Australian film" as being an authentic Australian culture, which would include crew, cast, and settings. As some others have pointed out even above, they clarified it as being Australian per the director being native Australian. Others as identified, in the source would refer to as strictly bureaucratic, hence the source calling it "technically Austrlain-US co-production.", something I and I belive Betty has brought up. If you are trying to question the quality of this source, that's another matter but I believe like a it's an acadmeic source, it is usually granted about more hierarchy than say, industry trade papers. As for saying the terms are tossed around causally, I stand by this. An article saying that a film is the top grossing Australian film of the year, does not disqualify it from being a co-production and you have shown nothing to suggest the US sources are incorrect or that the many publications aren't reliable sources. Here is an example from The Globe & Mail declaring a resident evil film to be among the highest grossing Canadian films. The article also states it's a German and Canadian co-production. I'm not saying that only makes it a Canadian-German co-production either, but it's just the elasticity that journalists toss around terms. While you have continuously said the majority speaks distinctly Australian as the film's origin, I have shown at least nearly 5 sources that state otherwise, from academic, databases, and journals. I'm really siding with Betty with the source I've dug up addressing the issues of perceived Australian-ness and technical bureaucratic details on it as an Australian production. Both are valid and using this source makes it so much clear cut on what we are trying to address in a way that's superior to the word Australian with a dozen citations after it. 05:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you are trying to analyse everything when not only is it unnecessary, but it's contrary to WP policy of following the sources and forbidding editor Original Research. Reliable sources describe it as an Australian film, hence we describe it as an Australian film. There is no reason for you or any other editor to analyse what this might "mean to difference audiences" - that's not our job. As I said above, if the franchise article merits a sub-paragraph analysing its 'Australian-ness' in more detail, one can be added in, provided such analysis is directly supported by citation and isn't an editor's own. But the way the film is described follows the sources, and no futher analysis or interpretation is necessary. It's a simple idea, that underpins the whole encyclopaedia, yet it is one that some editors really seem to struggle with. MapReader (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

So several points. What is the original research we're applying? Map Reader I apologize but a lot of your comments have been confusing. When asked to support your content with sources, you gave IMDb (against WP:RS/IMDb) or articles that were discussing the sequel to this film. You also said above "Agreed." in respond to Betty Logan, but your responding paragraph did not seem to follow that logic. As for your descriptions that may mean different things to different audiences, this is against WP:AUDIENCE which states "Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." Again, we're not discussing the franchise here so I'm not sure why that is being brought up. While your sources have referred to it Australian, what that means is vague and I've explained why that is the case. Using the sources I've mentioned (and that Betty Logan seconded), it addressed the issue brought up on the talk page of being clear to our readers. So, while I admire your dedication, your responses seem to be occasionally confusing and and you have not really supported what rules are being broken and have provided sources do not support what I believe you are trying to say, or are against established policy. I would suggest reading the article on National cinema. As you said earlier, you did not see how location or actors had baring on the nationality, the article goes into detail on this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I didn't link to IMDb as one of my sources; I simply mentioned IMDb at the end of my post and said myself that it wasn't worth much as a reference. That I provided a long and balanced range of sources and yet you keep picking on the passing reference to IMDb is just pettyfogging. And if you look at the indenting you will see that I was agreeing with GoneIn60, not Logan. WP:AUDIENCE is entirely irrelevant (the phrase "an Australian film" is perfectly accessible to all). It isn't our job as editors to be gathering data on actors or locations or financing or production entities to 'argue' our way to any particular conclusion - all of which would be OR and/or SYNTH. We simply reflect and follow the balance of reliable sources; I don't understand why you are finding that so confusing. It's what happens right across the encyclopedia. MapReader (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

MapReader, i've addressed several rules that make it clear why myself and other editors need to kill the air on this topic. The article above directly states the term "national cinema" is hard to define, and its meaning is debated by film scholars and critics. A film may be considered to be part of a "national cinema" based on a number of factors. Simply put, a "nation's cinema" can be attributed to the country that provided the financing for the film, the language spoken in the film, the nationalities or dress of the characters, and the setting, music, or cultural elements present in the film". You can have your own personal beliefs, but I've dug out several sources, and you've said rules don't apply because you seem to know what it means. This is a real moment where your going to have to dig out what the nationality of a cinema means, and nobody here is really interested in opinion pieces, I'd like to find some real sources. Because otherwise, you seem to just reply to say i'm applying WP:OR, which WP:ICANTHEARYOU. If you could quote what parts of these rules I'm breaking, I can probably address your issues clearer. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

None of this is relevant, because WP doesn’t include statements based on analysis of any of those factors, and the fact that you found them in third party article is irrelevant. WP works by direct citation, as has been explained to you several times. MapReader (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Its relevant as you stated that "(the phrase "an Australian film" is perfectly accessible to all)" (with no source, or rules to follow). As I've shown from the above sentence that its certainly not, and asked for a follow-up, you decided this point was no longer relevant. I don't know if you've read WP:ICANTHEARYOU But as Betty has chimed in, I'm going to probably go forward unless some other community member has more has more specific additions or concerns, as I've provided several sources on detailed sources that showcase there are a large amount of sources referring to both the film as "Australian" and "Australian-US". We also have one, that goes into details about interpretations of this as per above, its will vary what readers get from this (this wasn't to sway opinion or use sources for the record MapReader, this was to counter your point that readers require this). So with WP:IGNORE, the content helps users understand what we are trying to get across more so than a blanket statement which could mean anything. With that, I'll leave the door open for anyone else, otherwise, I'll move forward as I'm not sure what MapReader is getting at. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you consider the advice given to you above, to step back from this discussion for a while. MapReader (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what I said. Will return later. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Reflection

So as proposed, I've returned with some thoughts on reading through the comments again. The general issue I'm reading from @MapReader: and @GoneIn60: have been suggesting is concerns with removing "Australian" from the lead. I don't want to put words in their mouth but re-reading it, it relates to concerns about the series not being perceived as Australian. While we have a large amount of points specifically calling it Australian and a large amount calling it the other, I feel like I was trying to get a point across to a viewer, not as a reason to apply new material to the article. I've been called out on for this being WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. On asking to read what specifically there was the case.

• Per WP:SYNTHNOT,

• "SYNTH provides a guideline for helping to determine the difference between summarizing the information from sources and extrapolating new information from sources."
• "if a passage is unclear, the first response shouldn't be to challenge its perceived claims as synthetic."
• "If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be."

• Per WP:OR,

• "Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided." I believe this is why per MOS:FILM, we don't put the country in the lead when its from multiple production companies.

As for the Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, which was accused here, on reading that essay it states Sealions

• "attempt to water down language, whitewash, unreasonably exclude information"
• "frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information."

If anything, I've been trying to find more sources, I've requested not to find more sources (as it would be endless war with just everyone wasting time.). As it seems of key importance to the editors, I suggest we leave Australian in the lead, lose the The Hollywood Reporter (we probably don't need citations in the lead unless directly quoting someone), and can probably lose the citations in the infobox for the country. I believe the previous citation I've provided from Metro "Brian McFarlane of Metro described that Mad Max: Fury Road as being generally received as an Australian film, while technically being an Australian-US co-production." covers this and satisfies both MOS:FILM and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. We make information within the article relatively to the infobox, and the sources clarifies for us that the film is casually referred to as Australian, while the technical detail also clarifies anything to an audience unfamiliar with film and nationality, which itself, is a confusing topic and I've seen plenty of editors go to head in it. Look through discussion on WP:FILM about it for details.

So please assume good faith, if you can think of a better solution I'd be excited to hear it, but currently as it is, the problem is not solved and it breaks several rules. This one I think should satisfy most parties. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

As there has been no follow-ups to this, I'll give a few days and assume we are okay and go forward with my suggestions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think we were hoping that reflection would lead you toward new pastures. Deleting perfectly sound citations isn’t going to help with anything. MapReader (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've asked before to comment on the content, not on actions. If you are going to respond, please read WP:CIVIL first and discuss my content, not actions or presumptions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Per recent pressure out on me, I'll be stepping away. MapReader, go ahead, and edit the article as you'd like. I'm having issues outside this article at the moment and I'm not interested in continuing this further. Thanks for actually reading and going through my post as asked though. That was appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the above detailed re-hash of all the same points is particularly helpful, or pertinent. No-one has suggested that the description is “of key importance” to individual editors, which is an obvious mis-characterisation; I am not Australian and have no connections with Australia or with the Max films, and I doubt @GoneIn60: has any particular personal reasons for his conclusion, either. This and the rest of the Max franchise has been described as Australian for over a decade, because that reflects the balance of the reliable sources and is as explained in the very reliable US source which you propose to delete. So it’s not “important” to us; but the right answer for the encyclopaedia. Since this is so, we don’t have a problem that needs a “solution”. You are right, of course, that citations don’t normally appear in the lead, and there is perhaps a case for quoting more fully from it within the body of the article, and moving the citation down, but the counter-argument is that the citation is put where it is to head off another overly bold editor taking it upon themselves to jump in and edit the lead sentence without at least thinking about the issues and starting a discussion.

References