Talk:Jonathan Glazer

Zone of Interest Academy of Award acceptance speech section

I can see that this is highly contentious and so I am putting a comment here before editing to see if any other editor has a view. The paragraph largely frames criticism of Glazer's speech as an error of interpretation. While it does presently reflect the truth that some critics wantonly misrepresented Glazer's meaning, many (more?) simply referred to the equivalence he drew between the two sides in the present Gaza conflict (I'm trying to write that as neutrally as possible). To my mind, that paragraph does not reflect the nature of the criticism well enough; in effect it appears to rebut criticism of Glazer rather than describing the criticism correctly. I will wait to see if anyone has a view before editing. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree. The whole paragraph comes across as biased. It gives far more room to defence of his stance than to criticism. I would have liked to add the critical views of The Holocaust Survivors’ Foundation USA and of the film director Laszlo Nemes both in the Guardian today (16.3.24) but the page seems to be closed for editing. Blotski (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The page is likely restricted to auto confirmed users (500 edits, etc). I'll wait 'til tomorrow to give others a chance to chip in then I'll edit as you suggest. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

i agree wholeheartedly. I would also liked to have added the critical views of the Holocaust Foundation USA and Laszlo Nemes. Hopefully someone with higher status can do this. Cheers

8barzmusic 8barzmusic (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Lazlo Nemes statement should certainly be cited. I'll make that edit tomorrow if no-one opposes. Emmentalist (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you for posting this thread, too.

Cheers 8barzmusic (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Half the article for an oscar winning director shouldn't be reactions to a speech he made 2A02:C7C:7025:B500:4D64:614F:3BEB:C432 (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

i think that is a valid point as well. There shouldn't be any indications of a gossip publication. Correct me if I am wrong, things should be as neutral as possible. Objective. His career is not about opinions. 8barzmusic (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I couldn’t agree more with your comments. 98.217.161.235 (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you edit this to present it more from a neutral stance. Right now it is like propaganda. 98.217.161.235 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

that is my position too. I see why it's locked. 8barzmusic (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that his speech generated a lot of controversy, we can't just ignore the controversy and delete all the reactions to the speech. Up the Walls (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike

• I concur with StarkReport's concerns about WP:RECENTISM. The expansive section strikes me as WP:UNDUE. This bio should not contain an exhaustive list of reactions from those who disagree with the thrust of the subject's Oscars speech, at times based on misinterpretations as discussed in sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is not a reason to mass delete all well referenced content. WP:RECENTISM is an essay to encourage developing the article with "appropriate … aware[ness] of balance and historical perspective." It's also not a reason to mass delete well referenced content. Up the Walls (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike

Hello @Up the Walls, Please note that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. There is also a possibility of violating WP:PROPORTION's

"a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

Considering its association with the ongoing war in Gaza, perhaps it necessitates a broader consensus. Pinging @Nableezy, @Iskandar323, @TarnishedPath StarkReport (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I've undone a revision of today which cited WP:Recentism and removed much of the text. This is a live discussion of exactly that matter so I have applied WP:BRD. In conjunction with that, I will leave another couple of days - owing to the fulsome and constructive discussion here - then propose a form of words (other editors are of course welcome to do the same). All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that because there was so much reaction to the acceptance speech, we could probably break it off into its own separate article named Jonathan Glazer 2024 academy award acceptance speech controversy, and only leave a summary in this article.
I'm looking forward to seeing how much you're going to add to to this section to see if we should break it off. Below are additional reactions that could be added:

• László Nemes [1]
• Asif Kapadia [2]
• US Holocaust survivors foundation [3], [4]
• Danny Cohen (the film's executive producer) & Len Blavatnik (one of the film's producers) [5]

Up the Walls (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike

this is an acceptable idea. The original article can have "see also: Jonathan Glazer 2024 academy award acceptance speech controversy." Waving the the original namespace being about the subject. I'm sure my comments show a lot of inexperience as a newer user. I am definately learning a lot about namespaces by reading this talk page.

Thank you. 8barzmusic (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. We don't fix recentism in the subject's article by creating a whole page to hive the recentism off into. Please, before considering this any further, consider what the secondary sources are that you will rely on to show the historical interest of the speech as a subject in 10 years time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm been pinged here. In any case. The whole section is 5 paragraphs of wikispeach with a 1 paragraph quote. This is in serious need of a trim. TarnishedPath^talk 02:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The article also does not mention that some sources misquoted Glazer. As reported in Vulture:

Shortly after the speech, Glazer was misquoted online, including by Variety, which later corrected a story. It originally wrote that Glazer said, "Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness.” The full quote is, “Right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation, which has led to conflict for so many innocent people."

I am not sure if this is worth mentioning, but if we are already going to list a bunch of authorities condemning him for something he didn't say then maybe the media disseminating falsehoods would be important to mention? Οἶδα (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: The Zone of Interest section of article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this RfC is a WP:SNOW. It was overwhelmingly agreed by editors that the material in the section be trimmed to half of its previous size and that all references to international reactions be excluded altogether. As a result of editing by consensus the section currently looks like Special:Diff/1218574706#2019–present:_The_Zone_of_Interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarnishedPath (talk • contribs) 12:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Currently the The Zone of Interest section of this article takes up 7,261 bytes out the total 33,918 bytes of the whole article making it the largest section of the whole article. Refer to Special:Diff/1214424815 for current size of the section at time of writing this RfC.
Should the whole section, inclusive of any subsections and quotes, be trimmed so that it is no larger than half its current size? TarnishedPath^talk 02:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

I vote yes. I keep re reading it. 8barzmusic (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes I think that the material should be reduced by at least half. Further any quotation should be no more two sentences and that there should be no material on reactions. As it stands at present this section is WP:UNDUE coatracking. There's nothing wrong with a bit of material on the movie if it has WP:WEIGHT and it is WP:DUE but there rest is in its current form is uncalled for given its proportion to the rest of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes I would reduce it even further. It could be expanded later when we have better perspective about how it fits into the biography, but right now it's too WP:RECENT. Frankly, the film itself should be a larger part of his biography than a speech at the award show since the film is a bigger reason for his notability. Nemov (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  I actually agree here too. I'm sure some will argue that the acceptance speech is a big reason due to what it has stirred up. But the film got him the award in the first place, it is a bigger reason for his notability. I'm in favour of a trim. Also, I want to point out that this I am hearing about the effects of the subject's speech in all areas of my life. I can't actually get away from it. So, seeing that it is becoming more talked about, I can see the other side to the argument being fair as well. I am going to vote neutral now. I apologize if this doesn't help any. I'm going to read all the WP:RECENT and the others that have been mentioned to really familiarise myself. 8barzmusic (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose artificial trimming. The existing section correctly reflects the level of controversy that speech generated, and if anything, there is more that can be added. But it is conceivable that as the controversy grows, it may merit its own article with only a short summary within this biographical article. Up the Walls (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Sock strike

  What you argue for is coatracking. TarnishedPath^talk 00:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes and possibly merge into the movie's main article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes -- the contents in the current version of the article is sufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  A great improvement. I think it could be improved slightly more if the amount hat was quoted was reduced and the space given to the movie was increased slightly. TarnishedPath^talk 06:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - Per discussion below, I am not convinced the question asked here is quite the right one, but the discussion has led to a more concise version per StarkReport [6]. My yes is to agree that this is an appropriate level of concision for the article. Good luck to the closer on summing that up. 😁 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes a bit late to the discussion but yet for all the reasons stated. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

@Emmentalist, @Blotski, @8barzmusic, @StarkReport, @K.e.coffman, @Up the Walls and @Sirfurboy who have been involved in this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not sure this is the question we need answering, sorry. I haven't really commented on this yet, but my problem with the section is not its length per se, but that it is straying off topic and looks like some current affairs and politics sandwiched into the page. Currently we have 65 words telling us that the film was being produced and won two awards, and then (without actually telling us it won the Academy Award) there are 403 words about one part of his Academy Awards acceptance speech. That is political comment sandwiched into the article. Yes, he made the political comment, and it deserves a sentence, maybe two. But the problem with this RfC question is it does not resolve this undue coatracking, and would create consensus for an arbitrary rule that could, in any case, be gamed. If we said this section had to be cut below 250 words, someone could just coatrack this information in a political views section instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Sirfurboy you wrote "If we said this section had to be cut below 250 words, someone could just coatrack this information in a political views section instead". I think that would be covered by WP:GAMING and actionable at WP:AN/I if someone wanted to make a dispute out of it.

  You are correct that the problem here is WP:UNDUE coatracking, however I'd expect that would form part of this discussion. If this proposal was carried then that coatracking would be reduced by at least half. Note: I don't propose a minimum length for the section. The proposal only specifies a maximum. It could very well be the case that consensus develops for a maximum of two sentences, inclusive of any quotes, on the movie. TarnishedPath^talk 09:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree that that the content is going the way of WP:Coatrack and also looks like a product of RECENTISM. The reason I expanded the section earlier was solely for the sake of WP:Balance. But, now I think the one way to proceed forward is to remove the three paragraphs outlining reactions, and just revise the introductory line of the section to:

"At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine that elicited mixed reactions. He stated:"

Looking forward to what others think. StarkReport (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest that perhaps any quote be limited to one or two sentences and that commentary about reactions is not required. TarnishedPath^talk 10:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with TarnishedPath, and on that basis, this looks like a good move forward. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, By quotes, if you mean the reactions, hmm I think how about in the introductory line, we could rework it something like "At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine that was praised by some "for speaking out against the atrocities in Gaza." and criticised by some who perceived it to be Glazer "refuting his Jewishness." He stated:" StarkReport (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Too many words. How about:

"At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine"

If you wanted to suggest adding high quality reference/s that detailed that they were praised and criticised I wouldn't see any issue with that. Leave it to the reader to read further if they want. TarnishedPath^talk 11:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Your proposed line above seems perfectly fine to me. Actually, I'm in favor of it. StarkReport (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment @Nemov rightly points out above that there should be more material dedicated to the movie itself. In my view it should be one sentence stating: "At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine", two sentences of quote at most and the rest of the material on the movie itself. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Having read all the excellent contributions here, I must admit it feels like the new present wording feels like a misconception of the acceptance speech event. The speech is treated simply as a movie award acceptance speech where the movie is the main subject. There is a long quote and no reference to the international response. In fact, the speech was a highly political foray into the world's most explosive subject at present, one which garnered world attention because of its political intent. It was commented on worldwide as a highly political statement and event, and that was Glazer's intention. In my view, there should be a separate section entitled something like; "Statement on war in Gaza". The quote should be included, along with a short sentence which refers to the international response, and so should around four exemplar responses (supportive, critical on basis of equivalence implied, critical on basis of (ambiguous) refutation of jewishness, argument that he did not intend such a refutation). In the end, the article is not about the movie work of Glazer, but about Glazer himself. It is highly relevant to the article that Glazer has become, for a long moment, the focus of international political attention which goes well beyond his artistic output. I'll try a formulation here (not at the article) later for discussion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  In the end, the article is not about the movie work of Glazer, but about Glazer himself. One could also say in the end the article is not about reactions to a speech by Glazer, but about Glazer himself. However, both things are connected to Glazer, so we need to consider WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE amongst other considerations. The first sentence of the lede of this article states that Glazer "is an English film director and screenwriter". So obviously this gives us some indication about what is of more importance to talk about in the article, his speeches or his works as a director and screenwriter. We can talk about both but we need to apply appropriate WEIGHT and DUE. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @TarnishedPath Let me give a slightly nuanced parallel. If Robbie Williams turned up in Boots the chemist with a cricket bat and assaulted random members of the public while singing "Angels", the reportage would not be primarily about the song "Angels" and nor would that section of his Wikipedia article. Instead, there would surely be a section in his article entitled something like; "That time Robbie Williams went off his head in Boots". Here, with Glazer, the incident is not primarily an artistic one but a political one. This is both how Glazer intended it and how it was received across the world. Most people in the world who have heard of Glazer's remarks will certainly never heard of his artistic work. WP:Weight and WP:Due are surely both in order with a section which works in this way? Emmentalist (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Refer to WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think the issue here is around Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This is an encyclopaedia, and an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source. Now you are quite correct that this speech was a politicised foray into current affairs. I draw attention to your most explosive subject at present (my emphasis). Basing an editorial decision on that strays into news reporting. I understand that you will probably feel that we cannot know how deep the repercussions of this speech will be. Sometimes speeches do go down in history and become world changing. But Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. We don't guess what will be notable one day, we wait for the notability to be established, and then cover the matter.

  So, when is notability established? Simply this: when secondary sources cover it. When someone writes an analysis that says something about the deep legacy of this speech, how it changed the world, influenced a president, changed public perception etc. in a secondary source, then an encylopaedia writer can collate that secondary sourced information and other secondary sourced information into this tertiary sourced encyclopaedia.

  We are writing the tertiary source, not a secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Secondary sources does not mean a profound historical analysis, @Sirfurboy. It means it's covered widely in non-deprecated sources; far more widely in this case, I should say, than any of Glazer's movies have. We can use common sense to know that based on present knowledge of the vast coverage it received, the speech will continue to be Glazer's most widely covered act. I agree, by the way, that the actual text of the speech has not been covered anything like as much as reportage of the event. That would be an argument for omitting said text. Anyway, it certainly isn't recentism. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't recognise that definition of secondary sources. Deprecated sources are not reliable sources, but if they are not deprecated they may or may not be reliable, and that is a completely different consideration as to whether they are WP:primary or WP:secondary. Analysis is a key trait of a secondary source, but even then the distinction can be tricky. News reports are usually primary. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS for instance. In some cases they may be secondary though. Here we have what Donnelly & Norton (2021) call "discursive primary sources":

  Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.

  They have a lot to say about primary sources and sources in general, but one big takeaway from that book, btw, (and it might seem obvious) is that historians will prefer the primary sources, because they are writing histories. We are not writing histories (even if you grant a biography as a type of history). We are writing tertiary encylopaedic articles that should be devoid of original research. - Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with much of the commentary here, including the point by User:Sirfurboy that WP's role is to rely on secondary sources about the controversy. I believe I found one such reliable source, so I will (boldly?) add a sentence after the Glazer quotation.

  As I read the RfC survey, people favored cutting the WP coverage. But I do think it is odd to quote the acceptance speech without mentioning the controversy, because otherwise why put in that quote?

  If you agree that at least one sentence if plausible, let me suggest that you edit rather than revert my effort. I wrote: "Glazer's statement proved controversial and sparked strong reactions in Jewish circles." using a JTA source. ProfGray (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ProfGray, that's not consensus as I read it. Consensus as I read it is that controversy/reactions not be covered at all. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  The question was whether the text should be trimmed down. Five "yes" to trim it down. Did any !votes say that the controversy should not be covered at all? Maybe I missed that? The comments section concludes with a discussion about the need to have secondary sources. So I found a reliable source about the controversy, in general, and I wrote 11 words that does not get into the weeds at all. ProfGray (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Firstly refer to my !vote which explicitly stated that reactions should not be covered. Secondly refer to developing consensus about wording and edits over time which remove reactions (which had provided secondary sources) to a trimmed version. Your edit moved away from the consensus trimmed version. TarnishedPath^talk 02:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ProfGray, Please be aware that the speech received defense and commendation within Jewish circles as well. Exclusively incorporating the perspective you provided would violate WP:Balance. However, attempting to integrate commentary from both sides will lead to a cumbersome section that contradicts the established consensus. Most of the bad press was due to a misreported quotation of Glazer and is far from what would pass WP:10YT for this article. StarkReport (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hi. Isn't the proposed sentence balanced? It says: "Glazer's statement proved controversial and sparked strong reactions in Jewish circles." This incorporates strong reactions that were both positive and negative. If need be, we can add citations that further prove your point, which is absolutely correct, that there was support as well as opposition from fellow Jews -- though the article I cited itself aims for balance and does document progressive Jewish support for Glazer.

  I do agree that the consensus was to avoid a cumbersome section but I think one sentence, under a dozen words, is not cumbersome. Thanks for your consideration. ProfGray (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  There's already references in the section which contain information about what the reactions were. If readers are interested they can read the references and find out for themselves. This has already been covered in the discussion above. Consensus has formed for the trimmed version. TarnishedPath^talk 01:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed with this last response by @ProfGray 2605:8D80:680:DB57:65EA:6DBE:98F9:1B28 (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

References

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

Present version

There seems to be consensus on not referring to this week's worldwide criticism of the subject of the article so I'm going to leave it now. I see reference above to WP:Coatracking, which I think is in error. The article is about Glazer and reference to worldwide comment on his own comments, which were clearly designed to elicit worldwide comment, is manifestly not coatracking. That may be relevant if any editors look again in future. In the meantime, interesting chat and all the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I read the consensus differently and I did insert one sentence from a secondary source about the controversy itself. I put my comment above, under the RfC, sorry if I should have put it elsewhere. ProfGray (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for adding anything at all regarding worldwide reactions. TarnishedPath^talk 02:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations

Can we at least list that he won Best International Feature in green for the Academy Awards? Emma Oakley (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Is that content covered by the current RfC above? TarnishedPath^talk 10:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's just an award the film he directed won, it has nothing to do with his speech. Spinixster (trout me!) 08:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Spinixster, no that's clearly covered by the RfC above which covers the amount of article devoted to the movie and the speech. Any edits need to be taken up within that discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 15:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The RfC shouldn't be a mechanism for preventing discussion here. Indeed, since there was plenty of discussion here on the topic covered by the RfC at the time it's hard to see why it was necessary. In any case, referring comments back to the RfC seems out of order, imho. Emmentalist (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Discuss away if you want, however the RfC has established consensus on the issue. TarnishedPath^talk 09:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's quite right. It would freeze discourse on something even when the agreed text were factually wrong or no longer the consensus. All content must be open to editing. Tangentially, the RfC process is not really designed for a situation where there is already discussion at the article Talk page. There is, that way, an obvious risk that instead of being a means of encouraging discussion it could be used as a means of shutting it down. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is correct. Consensus has been established. Consensus of course can change, however if you were for example to edit the section of the article against the RfC right now I would revert you per the RfC and if you persisted I'd take you to WP:AE seeking sanctions against you given that I've already warned you about this being a contentious topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 13:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I missed your comment while I was writing my reply, below. But this makes me wonder, were you issuing me (and Emmentalist) a "warning" when you put the contentious topic template on our pages?

In WP, I'm accustomed to warnings as a response to vandalism or other violations. However, at the time you wrote, "This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing." While I'm quite familiar with contentious topics and often tried to resolve disputes, I didn't reply to your putting the info on my Talk because perhaps you thought I'm a novice. Now I feel that your tone is pretty strong. ProfGray (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi. You posed the RfC with a question was about cutting the section size in half. Editors agreed that.

You later closed the RfC, but you added "all references to international reactions be excluded altogether." I'm not convinced that was the consensus. For instance, you said yourself (bold added): "If you wanted to suggest adding high quality reference/s that detailed that they were praised and criticised I wouldn't see any issue with that. Leave it to the reader to read further if they want."

Also, the last RfC vote! was April 1st, while coverage of reactions to Glazer has continued. For instance, the New York Times covered the reactions on April 5th, including this statement: "Glazer’s speech has become one of the most hotly debated in Oscars history, drawing an open letter of strong denunciation from other Jewish film professionals last month and now one of support."

There's also been April coverage by Forbes, The Jerusalem Post, JTA (Jewish Telegraph Agency), CBC, Guardian, Independent, Vanity Fair, etc. My sense is that the most persistent reactions are from Glazer's fellow Jews.

The RfC should not be used to prevent or revert reasonable edits based on reliable sources. Previously, I tried and suggested this sentence, which does not bloat the section: "Glazer's statement proved controversial and sparked strong reactions in Jewish circles." ProfGray (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

An additional source: Reynolds, M. (2024). Navigating our ‘zone of interest’ in evaluative practice. Evaluative Practice (Members Journal of UK Evaluation Society), 02 pp. 11–15. The abstract states, " This second-order perspective was more explicitly flushed out in Glazer’s subsequent controversial Oscar-winning acceptance speech at the time of Israeli military actions on Gaza. As a UK citizen of Jewish descent, Glazer made allegorical use of the film to question the role of Israel in its devastating response on Palestinians in Gaza – moving beyond first-order to second-order evaluative practice." ProfGray (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

An RFC was conducted on this topic and it was noted by editors at that time there were reliable sources covering reactions. My reading of the consensus was that reactions should not be covered. TarnishedPath^talk 00:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree with my RfC close take it to WP:AN. In the event that the close is not overturned then it holds until such time that consensus determinises otherwise. TarnishedPath^talk 14:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My concern is less about your RfC close, which I recognize took time and effort on your part, than about the substantive coverage, in reliable sources, that support some encyclopedic discussion of reactions to Glazer's quoted statement. Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I get you. Look I don't even know who this bloke is. I only ended up here because I saw some dispute on a noticeboard and I thought I'd do a bit of community service, if that makes sense. When I got her I saw an dispute which it seemed like discussion wasn't solving and so I came up with a pretty extreme RfC to cut the material by half. During discussions it seemed like there was also consensus for excluding any mention of international reactions. As I wrote above consensus can change, but you need to make a case for that. TarnishedPath^talk 14:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice reply. I also came because I'm interested in disputes, especially I/P-related dispute resolution. By the time I'd arrived, IIRC, the bloated section was already trimmed way down. My sense was that the pendulum swung a bit too far, so I added that sentence. I understand why you reverted it and I don't blame you for that. Still, in the last 5 or so weeks, there has been coverage of the reactions (not just more reactions).

For me to make a case for covering the reactions, what would you consider persuasive, if not the NYT article? And how would you like me to make the case -- in this thread, in a new thread? I'm hoping you aren't recommending a new RfC. ProfGray (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Editors were already aware of the fact that there was an international reaction at the time of the RfC. In fact that's what prompted the RfC because the internal reaction section was taking up heaps of space in comparison to other stuff. Look there's no denying that there was some international reaction but if I could encourage you to read WP:WEIGHT and WP:ONUS. Just because Jonathon has gotten some small international attention about this, I don't think it's good reason to WP:COATRACK it into the article. We need to apply a bit of foresight, apply the ten or twenty year test and ask will this be talked about then? I hope this makes sense? TarnishedPath^talk 14:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to be discussing the case itself (for adding text about the reactions), whereas I'm asking you about process: How would you like me to make the case for adding something about reactions -- would it suffice to create a new topic here in the Talk? Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make a case then you could use this existing discussion. You could create a new discussion if you like. I'd suggest whatever you do, that you ping all involved editors but that's up to you. TarnishedPath^talk 15:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I entirely agree with your point, @ProfGray, that the RfC question of shortening the section in question did not address the matter of the extraordinary coverage (the speech got way more than any single award on the night). The policies being quoted here have such a large element of subjectivity that the notion of simply quoting a policy has little meaning of itself. Coatracking has been referred to, for example, but of course the article is not about the Oscars but about an individual whose speech was, in effect, more newsworthy than his winning of the Oscar. In effect, the speech is a separate issue from the Oscar win. At present, the shortening of the section has led to a lengthy quote but no meaningful reference to the vast international response; that's plainly silly since it's the response which gives note to the quote. To my mind, the RfC question was entirely unnecessary, since there was discussion here already: It truncated discussion and should not now be used in a bureaucratic way to prevent further sensible editing. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Everyone involved in the RfC was well aware of reactions to the speech. The RfC question didn't need to address the reactions as it was discussed during the RfC. Consensus can form during RfCs on matters which don't form the question. Ultimately there was consensus for a large trim and consensus against any expansion. If you want expand you'd need a new RfC in order to overturn the last RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 02:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The question is whether the trimmed version needs to exclude reference to the reaction. That it does at present seems perverse since the reaction was so profound. If there were no profound reaction then the inclusion of the quote makes little sense. I think there is a risk that your constant reference to your own RfC prevents sensible discussion here. I've said enough for now; I'll wait and see if anyone else wants to add. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Emmentalist I took the RfC to WP:CR and requested an independent close and was told by another editor that consensus was crystal clear, particularly given the editing by consensus which arrived at close to the current text, and that therefore I should close it myself. You've not addressed that everyone that took part of the RFC was well aware of reactions to the speech and that there was no consensus formed for the inclusion of reactions. If you think that my close was a misrepresentation of consensus then I'd invite you to take it to WP:AN for a close review, although I don't know if requesting a review so far after the close would fly. Alternatively you can start an RfC about something that no one will remember in 10 years. TarnishedPath^talk 12:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TarnishedPath. I don't agree with you. I've made that clear. I feel that the notion of shortening the section seemed odd and that the shortening agreement itself manifestly does not preclude including a reference to the response. I'll leave it for others to take a view. My own view is that you are wikilawyering, no doubt unintentionally, and seeking to tie up a discussion which amounts to simple commonsense. There is no reason at all for the present format to quote a speech at length if the reason for the significance of the quote (i.e. public response worldwide) is not referred to. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Emmentalist discuss away, no one is stopping that. However don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS like other editors WP:WIKILAWYERING unless you have specific evidence which clearly demonstrates your claim. If you want the view of others it might also be useful to ping everyone who's previously involved in the discussing the topic. TarnishedPath^talk 21:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @TarnishedPath, I am entirely confident that I can stand up the Wikilawyering comment but it seems to me that a lengthy discourse on that here would be a distraction. For example, however, you have tended to cite policies without specifically justifying how and why they apply in this context. My impression, too, is that with this article you employed RfC when it wasn't necessary and the consequence, unintended or otherwise, has been to distort a section of the article and to suggest that that distorted section cannot now be amended without reference to the RfC process. This in turn has made the process of improving the article more cumbersome. These are my opinions and are at least arguable; there is no breach whatever, nor any intent to breach, WP:Aspertions. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Emmentalist you're casting wild aspersions without evidence. If you're claiming I am engaging in behaviour that is against policy then take it to WP:AN/I and provide your evidence. Otherwise I expect a full retraction of your aspersion casting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a red-herring, @TarnishedPath. In any case, see my latest comments. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Emma Oakley: this was removed on the grounds that the country (not Glazer) won the award: "This shouldn’t be listed like he won it, under Academy rules the UK won it." --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(Cont. from above) I'm continuing to track coverage of the responses to his acceptance speech. Above, I mentioned NYT, Forbes, JPost, JTA (Jewish Telegraph Agency), CBC, Guardian, Independent, Vanity Fair. Here's an excerpt from a new academic article (bold added):

"When Glazer made that connection implicit in his Oscar’s acceptance speech – “Not to say ‘look what they did then’ – rather, ‘look what we do now’” – he too became part of the proxy cultural conflict that has raged from Berlin to New York. ... Glazer’s Oscar’s speech turned him into a controversial figure in the very history he is asking us to understand." (Stonebridge, L. (2024). Mythic Banality: Jonathan Glazer and Hannah Arendt. Journal of Genocide Research, 1–7. https://doi-org/10.1080/14623528.2024.2351263)

A quarterly online film magazine has a May feature article on the film, which states (bold added):

"While each year at least one winner uses their platform to speak to a political cause, the attention Glazer’s speech received, and maintained, is unlike anything we’ve seen before. His words about the war in Israel and Gaza have been, on one end of the political spectrum, forcefully condemned, and on the other end, wholly supported. In accepting an award for a film about the dangers of silence, he could not have stayed quiet about the atrocities that have, and are continuing to happen, on both sides of the ‘wall’. The forceful reaction to Glazer’s speech re-emphasizes that The Zone of Interest sits firmly in the present tense. It is not about ‘then’ and ‘there’, but about ‘here’ and ‘now’." (Source: Senses of Cinema at http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2024/feature-articles/a-deafening-complicity-in-the-zone-of-interest/)

These reliable sources do attest to the controversy, they are not only reporting positive and negative reactions. Such reactions also continue, such as a piece in Commentary that reacts to the reactions (https://www.commentary.org/articles/liel-leibovitz/jonathan-glazer-liberal-jewish-prophet/). ProfGray (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Two other sources, I do not know their reliability: Compact Mag, May 30th: "Director Jonathan Glazer, accepting an Oscar for best international feature, fanned the flames further by explicitly connecting the Nazi “dehumanization” depicted in The Zone of Interest to Israel’s actions in Gaza. In response, prominent Jewish voices, and even the film’s executive producer, denounced Glazer’s speech. But something important has been missed in all the polemics that have swirled around The Zone of Interest. ..." (https://www.compactmag.com/article/polands-zone-of-interest/)

New Lines Magazine, May 16: "With an immediacy typical of our very online era, onlookers reacted to the phrase “refute their Jewishness” practically in isolation, accusing Glazer of “refuting” his very identity as a Jew. Not long after the ceremony, more than 1,200 Jews working in Hollywood signed an open letter denouncing him. “We refute our Jewishness being hijacked for the purpose of drawing a moral equivalence” between Nazi Germany and Israel, they wrote, adding that using the word occupation “distorts history.” And the storm continued. Almost a month later, a new letter in support of Glazer was signed by more than 150 Jewish professionals in the movie industry, also calling for a permanent cease-fire in Gaza." (https://newlinesmag.com/argument/the-death-of-debate-on-palestine-and-israel/) ProfGray (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

My strong view, which I have expressed above, is that it is perverse not to have any mention of the controversy which Glazer's speech caused. The RfC, in my view, was not necessary in the first place, however it proceeded on the question of whether the section should be trimmed and not whether there should be reference to the response to Glazer's speech. The trim at present includes a lengthy quote and no reference to the international response, when the only reason for interest in the quote is, quite literally, the international response (i.e. there were many other speeches on the night and arguably for more significant prizes). I do not in any way suggest that @TarnishedPath is doing anything other than edit in good faith, but it does seem fairly clear to me that s/he/they is/are seeking to prevent a valid and sensible update of that section in the light of the worldwide interest Glazer's speech attracted. Notably, the speech is not simply, of itself, an extension of a reference to Glazer's movie or work. The speech was, in effect, a notable event of itself; it essentially deserves its own section. As it is, however, it is possible that the relevant section at present can be suitably amended; such an amendment must mention the international response, in my modest opinion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Emmentalist you accused me of WP:WIKILAWYERING. That is an aspersion about my behaviour.

When I came upon this article as consequence of noticeboard post, it was clear that edit warring was occurring and discussion in talk wasn't bringing about an end to it. An RfC was clearly a valid option to determine what consensus was given what was occurring wasn't leading there. Now like it or not you can't override the consensus of an RfC just because you disagree with the outcome. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

When you made your first contribution, there was certainly no WP:edit warring going on in respect of this specific topic. I introduced the discussion on Glazer's speech here myself (within the confines of what has now become an extensive discussion here) and the discussion was extremely productive before you employed the RfC process. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Everyone who participated in the previous RfC was well aware of reactions and it was still a WP:SNOW for a trim specified in bytes of content. Also editing by consensus and discussion resulted in a version with no discussion of reactions. Neither yourself, nor Emmentalist have addressed that. TarnishedPath^talk 14:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Then let me address it. There was much discussion leading to consensus and that was interrupted by, in my view, an unnecessary RfC. However, looking back at the RfC it is clear to me that your claim of WP:Snow is incorrect. Indeed, it is an example of my point above of you citing policies without discussing and contextualising them. Again, this is my opinion and might certainly be arguable; I am confident that it is valid as an opinion, however. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Emmentalist I posted at WP:CR for an independent close of the RfC and I literally had another editor mark my request as 'not done' and advised me to do it myself because consensus was clear. You can claim that what you're saying is "your opinion" all you want, however you're making claims about my behaviour and you need to back them up with specific evidence or you need to unreservedly retract. TarnishedPath^talk 12:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said, this is a red-herring. However, my view of your conduct here is that you have frequently referred to policies (e.g. Snow, Coatrack) in order to support otherwise dogmatic statements and when doing so you have not provided a rationale or context. A policy isn't a juju; it's a reference point for intelligent discussion. In my view, you have weaponised policy as per WP:Wikilawyering (see bullet point 5), instead of using policy to frame reasonable discourse. For example, you have cited wp:Coatracking when I and others have been arguing that the Oscar speech is an event of itself and not simply an extension of the movie. To describe that as coatracking is to beg (or evade) the question at issue in the discussion. In other words, to simply cite the policy is not a response or argument; it is simply an assertion that you are correct and we are not. I would really much prefer to resolve the issue at hand intelligently rather than getting sidetracked, though. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Emmentalist I'm not going further engage with you here as you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS without specific evidence backing up your claims, and you clearly WP:IDHT. You had your chance to put your case in the RfC and clearly almost everyone else was unconvinced by any arguments you made. Now WP:CCC, so if you want to keep discussing then do so. TarnishedPath^talk 01:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That's fine with me, @TarnishedPath. I provided examples of Wikilawyering, and in my view you have continued doing that in your comment here. Your citation of WP:CCC and WP:IDHT, for example, are both incorrect in this context, in my opinion. Your primary purpose, as far as I can see, seems to be to prevent sensible reference to the response to the subject of this article's speech about Gaza. I am not sure why but there it is. I will seek to improve the article if I can. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

What you claim as examples Wikilaeyering, don’t demonstrate what you claim. You need to cease your behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• An RFC was held on the topic, and the present state of the article is the result of that RFC. There's not much to add. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)