Talk:Film noir/Archive 3

Tone issues redux

Something seriously needs to be done about the tone issues in this article...especially the captions. In the near future I will try to get other opinions on this. We had five users (including me) say they had issues with the tone earlier this year (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Film_noir#Tone_issues) and a sxith recently posted a tone banner on the top of the page, until it was quickly reverted.

The only opposition to changing the tone of this article has come from User:DCGeist, User:RedSpruce, and now apparently User:DocKino. It is my opinion than when we have six against two (and possibly three) we need to have some serious discussion about what must be changed.

And there is another thing about these three users than concern me: each has remarkably similar patterns of editing. I have nothing concrete that they are all controlled by the same user, and I am sincerely sorry if I am wrong. But I have lots of circumstantial evidence: all three are fond of editing the articles punk rock, United States, Joseph McCarthy and related topics, articles on specific film studios, and to top it all off, all three seem to agree completely on the tone issues with the Film noir article. Now, I'm not saying that it is a crime to have similar interests on Wikipedia, and indeed, if the same person edited through multiple accounts he would've edited 30,000 times since 2005...quite remarkable...but I find it odd that such like users would have the exact same opinions on certain articles. If it were so, we can't have one user deflecting the concerns of other users...

I apologize if I am falsely accusing anyone of sockpuppetry... PBP (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for editors who work well together to consult one another regularly, and having known DCG fairly well in the past, I must personally express doubts that there is sock-puppetry going on. That being said, I have to agree that when many editors have an issue with the article, and editing the article around those issues does not substantially violate any policies and guidelines, and does not substantially damage the article's content, this usually is indicative that the issue is a valid one and should be edited accordingly to address those concerns. I would therefore like to strongly urge that the tone concerns be dealt with instead of ignored and reverted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I never thought about collaboration...if it's true, then like I said, I apologize for accusing someone of sockpuppetry. I suppose I was concerned when I saw DocKino's edits strongly correlated to the other two editors'.

In any case, I repeat, some action needs to be taken on this article's tone issues. PBP (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I find the tone of the article entirely suitable to the subject matter. The whole caption debate aside (where, yes, I do agree with Messrs. Geist and Spruce), could you please point to a few spots in the main article text that you find particularly problematic? Rather than tagging a largely excellent article, why don't we focus on specific improvments in a collaborative fashion?

As for the accusation of sockpuppetry, I'm not sure whether to be offended or amused. I'll go with the latter. Just to set the record straight, I've never once edited Joseph McCarthy and--though I can't swear they've never done so--I've never seen the name of Mr. Geist (with whose work I'm familiar) or Mr. Spruce (with whose work I'm not) even once on Columbia Pictures, or The Clash, or The Sex Pistols, the three articles where I've done by far the most work. So...let's try to relax, keep that inflammatory tag off the page, and work to make the article even better than it already is.DocKino (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your opinion is not the only one that matters. Not only is it six editors to three, but a neutral commenter called in agreed that the captions were in serious need of revision, and strongly advised that we seek out a copyeditor, which is still pending. Android 93 (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one example of why these matters are not put to a simple vote (or to risible displays of emphasis). Here is one of the existing captions that you have a problem with, and what you consider an improvement :

The "original" femme fatale, Marlene Dietrich, complete with noir-regulation cigarette, in a publicity shot for Josef von Sternberg's mordant melodrama Der blaue Engel (The Blue Angel; 1930).

One of the first femme fatales, Marlene Dietrich, holding the cigarette that would become a staple of the archetype. She appears here in a publicity shot for Josef von Sternberg's mordant melodrama Der blaue Engel (The Blue Angel; 1930).

Let's see what's happened:

"'Original'"—which correctly suggests to the reader that it is an attributive notion that must be historically contextualized—has been replaced by "one of the first," which is simply incorrect.
"Noir-regulation cigarette"—which correctly suggests that there's a lot of smoking in film noirs—has been replaced by "holding the cigarette that would become a staple of the archetype," which is (a) comparatively long-winded and (b) claims that cigarette smoking is a particular staple of the femme fatale. But it is not, particularly. Cigarette smoking is a staple of noir in general. The existing phrasing makes that point; yours does not.
The superfluous phrase "She appears here" has been added.

Let's look at another example—again, the existing caption, followed by your "improvement":

Neo-noir/Take 3: Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Brick (2005). The movie's characters, most of them high-school students, speak as if they learned English from Hammett and Chandler.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Brick (2005). The movie's characters, most of them high-school students, speak in a style reminiscent of the classic Noir era.

"Neo-noir/Take 3" has been cut. This is defensible on the grounds of brevity; however, the phrase does help the reader quickly scanning the article to more easily process the transition from classic film noir to neo-noir.
"Speak as if they learned English from Hammett and Chandler"—which correctly describes the characters' entertainingly but bizarrely anachronistic style of speech—has been replaced by "speak in a style reminiscent of the classic Noir era," which is (a) less informative, (b) inaccurate (in no classic film noir is the speech style so exaggerated), and (c) misleading. Their style of speech is aggressively artificial, a significant fact suggested by the current phrasing and glossed over in yours.
The word "Noir" has gained an improper capital.

That said, I'm happy to work with anyone who wants to improve the article and is capable of doing so.—DCGeist (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the following captions? In bold I put the elements that are "too cute" and should be stricken; they do not belong in an encyclopedia article:

Cheap at twice the price: Detour (1945) cost $117,000 to make when the biggest Hollywood studios spent around $600,000 on the average feature. But the accountants at small PRC weren't happy—it was 30% over budget."

Neo-noir/Take 1: As car thief Michel Poiccard, aka Laszlo Kovacs, Jean-Paul Belmondo does his best Bogey in À bout de souffle (Breathless; 1960), written and directed by Jean-Luc Godard from a story by François Truffaut

Neo-noir/Take 2: Sharon Stone as Catherine Tramell, a femme fatale for the 1990s—and the ages—in the smash box-office hit Basic Instinct (1992). She is seen here under interrogation, preparing to open up.

Neo-noir/Take 3: Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Brick (2005). The movie's characters, most of them high-school students, speak as if they learned English from Hammett and Chandler.

Now it's dark: Night club chanteuse Dorothy Vallens, played by Isabella Rossellini, sings the title song in David Lynch’s Blue Velvet (1986).

Night and the city: Harrison Ford as detective Rick Deckard in Blade Runner (1982). It may be 2019, but this is the world of noir, so it's still raining in Los Angeles.

Still up in the air: Some consider Vertigo (1958) a noir on the basis of plot and tone and various motifs. Others say the combination of color and the specificity of director Alfred Hitchcock's vision exclude it from the category.

'Forget it, Jake. It's...the blinds.' Private eye Jake Gittes, performed by Jack Nicholson, undergoes some old-school shadowcasting in Chinatown (1974).

Please tell me how those elements in bold belong in an encyclopedia article. These are not bad captions, but they are more suited to a book on film that a Wikipedia page. PBP (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how those elements don't belong in an encyclopedia article. Or to put it another way, tell me how your opinion on this is anything more than your opinion. As I've said somewhere before, if and when a majority of involved editors come to agree with your opinion on this, then the captions will be changed. Consensus is determined by the editors who are actively involved with an article. Tallying up "drive-by" comments from the past isn't enough to decide an issue. RedSpruce (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formal tone does not mean the article should be written using unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. Furthermore, I don't know where this concept that only primary editors are allowed to form objections - the whole point of a talk page is to bring up issues which the primary editors may not have seen (as is any review process) - obviously, had the primary editors seen a problem, it would not have been written as such. What's more, the position of a user as a reader is just as privileged, since they represent the larger audience for the article, most of whom are not aware of the talk page and will not contribute there.

I will repeat again - if the same comment is made by multiple unaligned editors, it does not substantially violate any guidelines or policies, and does not adversely affect the dissemination of the larger concepts, then I fail to see a good reason for resisting such changes, and continuing to do so leaves the editors open to ownership accusations. The way forward is through compromise, not indifference. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant to imply that only involved (I didn't use the word "primary") editors were allowed to form objections. I'm simply saying that the bottom line is that it's actual edits that count. If someone voices an opinion, but doesn't bother to make an edit or to defend his opinion when his edit is undone, then, by virtue of WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, there's no requirement that that person's "vote" be counted.

I'm all in favor of Talk page discussion. It can be used to present logical arguments and to present opinions in a compelling way. But after the arguments and opinions have been presented, it still comes down to how many editors support one or another version of the article. RedSpruce (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what I'm saying is that we're writing this for readers, not editors, so the edits are not a germane issue. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean. RedSpruce (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"if and when a majority of involved editors come to agree with your opinion on this, then the captions will be changed" I'd like to point out, Redspruce, that we are in a majority. PBP, Crossmr, Robotriot, Girolamo Savonarola, Poechalkdust, and I have all expressed dissatisfaction with the current tone, whereas only you, DCGeist, and DocKino want to maintain the article as is.

I do not kid myself that my changes are perfect. DCGeist attempted to invalidate my point by pointing out minor flaws in my proposed revisions, but the fact still stands that you are in a minority. Android 93 (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found PBP's breakdown of the captions useful. Here's my take, which may not exactly agree with anyone else's.

I see three different categories among the things PBP bolded: (1) The "Neo-noir" takes 1,2,3. They're self-conscious and I don't really see what they add. I mean, we do have a big bold "Neo-noir" on top of the section. (2) The other lead-in lines ("Cheap at twice the price"; "Now it's dark; etc.). I guess I can understand why some people resist them, but they strike me as really engaing. They focus me on the point of the caption and the image, and so I think they serve a real purpose. (3) The four, er, body-content lines that PBP bolded. These I all strongly support. They're informative, and they make me think about what I'm looking at in a really interrogative way. If they don't necessarily sound like every other caption on Wikipedia, that's a small price to pay for the benefit they bring.DocKino (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Girolamo and the others. There are serious tone issues that need to be addressed. The captions are not written in the manner of an encyclopedia. Doc, perhaps its worth considering every other caption on Wikipedia featured-class articles. Are they written like this? I think not. The benefit is less than the cost; if it wasn't more article would be like this one--this is why they need to be re-written. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd like to join this discussion as well, as I found this article through the WP:CLEANUP page looking for guidance on a similar situation with another article. I need to get up to speed on the debate here, but at the moment I'd like to state that I am in general agreement with the party that finds the captions favored by RedSpruce et al inappropriate in tone. I'd also like to note, but hopefully without being inflammatory, that I find RedSpruce's response above about not knowing what Girolamo means when he says WP is for the readers and not the editors rather disingenuous, given his other florid arguments. I believe that articles should be written at a level suitable for readers who are unfamiliar with the subject matter and the captions at issue are a bit esoteric if one isn't familiar with the conventions and lingo of film noir and its fans. Since WP policy is to be more concerned with verifiability than truth, I think a compromise for the kind of language the minority wants included in the captions would be to find a respected film critic who describes the noir images as such (or in similar terms) and simply add a citation to the caption. Looking forward to productive and civil discussion, dfg (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I made edits to the captions—individually in order to justify each one—and I hope now the discussion can continue. dfg (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call me disingenuous if you want Dfgarcia, but I didn't know what Girolamo meant, and I'm still not sure. Your interpretation--that WP shouldn't get too esoteric--seems reasonably plausible, and I think it's also a valid point. I don't think it's valid enough to justify our edits, however. The colorful language is confined to image captions, and it's implausible (perhaps even disingenuous) to say that these few captions will be an impediment to "readers who are unfamiliar with the subject matter". As I've said before, I think this is a matter of opinion and taste more than rational argument, and it's an issue that the "marketplace" of active editors is going to have to decide. RedSpruce (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RedSpruce, I must say it was rather unhelpful for you to revert a total of 12 constructive edits and not comment on any of them in particular beyond an edit summary of "rv to better writing", which is itself a bit uncivil. To enhance the ongoing discussion we have here, here is a list of the edits I made and I would appreciate it if they could be discussed individually. Please note that there were several different issues at hand in these edits including: tone, weasel words, wikilinking, and NPOV. Surely you and others who agree with you have more to say about each issue, instead of just that "your" version is better? The edits:

(cur) (last) 13:52, July 8, 2008 Dfgarcia (Talk | contribs) (87,208 bytes) (→Worldview, morality, and tone: wikilinked and more formal) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:49, July 8, 2008 Dfgarcia (Talk | contribs) (87,164 bytes) (→Visual style: too much of an inside joke, + what is shadowcasting?) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:48, July 8, 2008 Dfgarcia (Talk | contribs) (87,240 bytes) (→Approaches to defining noir: flip + "Some consider" and "others say" are very WP:WEASEL) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:43, July 8, 2008 Dfgarcia (Talk | contribs) (87,231 bytes) (→Film noir parodies: "ultra" too NPOV + wikilinked anti-hero. Also, who (i.e. which film critic) has written that Taxi Driver is a noir parody? I think the whole section needs references) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:40, July 8, 2008 Dfgarcia (Talk | contribs) (87,233 bytes) (→Science fiction noir: Unencyclopedic tone, again, and inappropriate: aren't there many different shots in Blade Runner emphasizing the rain, the city, and that it's the future?) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:37, July 8, 2008 Dfgarcia (Talk | contribs) (87,342 bytes) (→Psycho-noir: Again, flip and un-businesslike) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:36, July 8, 2008 Dfgarcia (Talk | contribs) (87,357 bytes) (→The 1980s through the present: Needs the author's names, at the very least, wikilinked for the casual reader to understand this.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:34, July 8, 2008 Dfgarcia (Talk | contribs) (87,476 bytes) (→The 1980s through the present: to open up what? Needs clarification or to be written more literally) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:33, July 8, 2008 Dfgarcia (Talk | contribs) (87,498 bytes) (→The 1960s and 1970s: "Does his best Bogey" is jargon and unlikely to be understood by a casual or uninformed reader) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:30, July 8, 2008 Dfgarcia (Talk | contribs) (87,538 bytes) (→Film noir outside the United States: "most acclaimed" by whom? Good place for a solid citation) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:28, July 8, 2008 Dfgarcia (Talk | contribs) (87,576 bytes) (→Directors and the business of noir: a little flip, and not quite businesslike) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:26, July 8, 2008 Dfgarcia (Talk | contribs) (87,602 bytes) (→The prehistory of noir: can someone cite the "noir regulations" document?) (undo)

dfg (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a further comment, let me bring to attention the caption for Out of the Past (w/ Mitchum and Greer). This is a great example of a helpful caption that does without the "cute" jargon, and gives useful, wikilinked information about noir and its conventions. Other captions, such as the ones for Pulp and Detour have factual information *and* they're cited (even better). I think this is what editors should strive for. dfg (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with dfg here. There is clearly a substantial view (which some may call consensus) that the captions require work. Therefore, wholesale reversion of good faith edits of these are no longer acceptable; continue to edit and refine as necessary, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a good faith edit based upon my take as to what is best for the article. That is my right and obligation as an editor. Obviously that would be a "wholesale" revert, since all the edits I reverted were made with a single goal and focus in mind, as your point-by-point comments above show. "RV to better writing" was a correct comment, obviously based on my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with my opinion; you are not so welcome to suggest that I don't have a right to that opinion.

I don't think any more discussion will be particularly useful here; the issue (for the severalth time) is one of taste. Some people think that even a tiny dose of cleverness and imagination is out of place in a WP article, and others don't. Obviously discussing the captions one by one would just be a tedious rehashing of those two opposing viewpoints, over and over and over.

It may be that for the time being the "boring white-bread image caption" school of thought has the majority among active editors here. Time will tell. RedSpruce (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this sounds like a capitulation on any kind of compromise. It's a shame that editors involved in the article would be unwilling to work with others who don't share the same opinion, but rather just throw their hands up if they don't get their way. I'm also worried that your "time will tell" comment could be read by someone not assuming good faith as "I'll wait until the issue dies down and then change them back to how I like it." I wish pointing out specific areas concerning the captions where compromise could be made (such as citations) wouldn't be a waste of breath, but as you say, you are the one who feels it is an all or nothing issue of taste. dfg (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to engage in good-faith re-editing, and choosing instead to simply revert instead of integrate strikes me at this juncture as POINTy, contentious for the sake of preserving against "the wrong version", contrary the conventions of reversion as outlined in the guidelines, but most damningly: thoroughly un-wiki. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo, I can only assume you're directing that at RedSpruce, as I had made the edits as a starting point for improvement, whereas RS appears to view "his" version as the end. dfg (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that one of the first things RedSpruce did (based on his edit history) was to revert *over* the constructive edits DCGeist made (although I still think the double entendre one for Basic Instinct is unencyclopedic) to the captions is a clear indication of his not editing in good faith. For shame. dfg (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for section: Film noir parodies

Well, I had hoped for a more constructive edit from DCGeist than simply removing the tag, but I agree I was remiss in not bringing up specific examples. Therefore, I believe that such statements as: "In 1945, Danny Kaye starred in what appears to be the first intentional film noir parody", "Bob Hope inaugurated the private-eye noir parody", and "Murder by Contract (1958)... may qualify" require some kind of clarification about who exactly holds these opinions, otherwise it sounds like so much original research. I also have concern for such phrasing as "benefit from the services of", "is among the best known", "taking it to an absurd extreme", "Flirting... even more brazenly", etc. I can see that there are plenty of print sources listed for the article—I'm wondering who has ready access to them and can improve the article by including citations. I chose to tag this section as an example; there are other sections that are well, or at least better, cited. I am fascinated and encouraged that there are editors involved in this article that seem to be educated or well-read on the topic, and I would hope that they could change the appearance of the article from a film-lover's glowing appreciation of the genre to a neutral, yet informative, encyclopedic piece for the less-informed. Cheers, dfg (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that DCGeist neglected to read this part of the talk page and is not just being difficult, the parodies section is now inline-tagged with concerns for citing sources, opinions that read as original research, and a request for de-jargon-ification. I refrained from adding weasel word and inappropriate tone (among other applicable) tags, because first things first. dfg (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tags were ignored and removed. Specifics here and in the article were requested and ignored. Mind you all, this is a single section that is representative of other sections that aren't well-cited, and I think it is a good starting point for discussion, collaboration, and compromise. Please don't just resort to revertion when there are multiple editors willing to work together. dfg (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that he would rather that individual phrases be tagged for specific issues, rather than a tag for the section. Either is fine, as long as you follow up the tag in the talk page (which I believe you have), but if he prefers an instance-by-instance in-line tag, then I think it's worth compromising on. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(redacted)

Enough with the attacks. Communications on the talkpage should focus on the article, not on the editors. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I'd appreciate if everyone could review their most recent posts, and remove anything which might be considered an attack. Let's try for a more collegial tone here, thanks. --El on ka 20:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne

Do we need to mention Max Payne 2 videogame here? In that article it said that Max Payne has much of film noir. --Nagasheus (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Lots of video games use film noir imagery, as do lots of other things -- music videos, ads, whatnot. Max Payne 2 is not a notable example of this whole topic of style influence. RedSpruce (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]