Talk:Oppenheimer (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Billing block

@Rusted AutoParts: Sometimes, for films with large ensemble casts, the billing block in the infobox is reduced to just the lead. Take Knives Out 2 and Asteroid City as examples where the purpose is to avoid repeating information. Should we do that? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edit. Special:Diff/1073423801 Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Casting section

Seeing if anyone else feels we should look at doing something with this section so it’s not just a glut of names, and since we can’t assume Nolan won’t keep adding names until the end of time, perhaps we either abolish the section, just have the names sourced via the cast list, or restructure the way the section is written, with only a couple of names for example. Rusted AutoParts 05:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: I agree, abolish #Casting (except for the first few lines). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Filming

Keep an eye out for Monday, that's when it might begin filming. Rusted AutoParts 02:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

We're hearing that he'll be on UC Berkeley campus with a film crew tomorrow. 128.32.74.143 (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

First sentence

Here, per WP:LEAD (e.g., MOS:FIRST), I rewrote the lead section so the first sentence introduces the notable context for this film. The previous version named Oppenheimer, the focus of the film, but did not explain about him until the end of the first paragraph. Similarly, Murphy's portrayal as Oppenheimer was introduced this late. This new version explains about Oppenheimer upfront, as well as indicating upfront who portrays him, before getting into details of less-notable context like the production companies. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Jack Quaid's role

He is listed as portraying Feynman but in the citation next to him no mention of who he plays can be found. TheCroggster (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2022

My suggest is to follow the actors billing that is in the poster (Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr. and Florence Pugh; in that order). AKetchum (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The cast listing is currently based on the most recent press release from Universal, not the poster. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Running time

The source used for running time is Matt Damon. He doesn't even state the specific running time. I don't think this should be used. TimmyC105 (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. We need third party sources for just about all content on Wikipedia. We should wait until the BBFC or IFCO rates the film. Mike Allen 14:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

I want to make an edit on Oppenheimer movie page. I want to expand the marketing section and ″add some information about Oppenheimer trailer marketing strategy″. Toheedulhaq21 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2023

I want to add the real people the cast portrays in the film and link them to their Wikipedia page. Aaronthompson528 (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

IMAX 70mm

28 IMAX theaters globally will show the film using 70mm film. According to the AP, the 70mm film is 11 miles long and weighs more than 600 pounds 2600:1011:B059:AD5D:BD16:B183:48D5:D8F0 (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Number of prints added to article. Barry Wom (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

Add support actor Amir Ali Shaik 2406:7400:90:FA25:C0F2:BE23:F3C2:18B2 (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning up the lead section's second paragraph

The lead section's second paragraph has numerous problems that need to be resolved.

First, the misleading bit: Nolan didn't "announce" anything. He started (privately) shopping around his script looking for a studio to fund it, which the trades heard about and reported. Big difference.

Second, so much of what is mentioned in the second paragraph ("Nolan announced he would be writing and directing a film about Oppenheimer, set during World War II, with Universal Pictures as distributor") is redundant with what's in the first and third paragraphs.

We already know that he's writing and directing a film about Oppenheimer from the first lead paragraph. Redundant. And from the trailers, we know that the film will encompass a time period that spans before and after WWII, so the "set during World War II" is outdated. And Universal Pictures is mentioned as the distributor in the third lead paragraph, which is where the info is most appropriately placed. Again, redundant. Not how valuable lead section space should be spent.

Third, there's really no need to mention the editor and the composer and the visual effects company in the lead section. The former two are already listed in the sidebar, and that's all that's needed. That's how the majority of, if not all, Wikipedia pages on films do it, I believe. The editor and composer get mentioned in the sidebar and maybe get elaborated upon below in the depths of the article itself, but not in the lead section. And the third one, the visual effects company? I'm not sure why the name of the visual effects company warrant a mention in the lead section.

Nothing wrong with having detailed, exhaustive info in the article itself. It's just that that doesn't belong in the lead section, whose purpose is to highlight and summarize only the absolute most essential, interesting aspects. Z8n (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

When I originally wrote this post (on 18 June) bring up my issues with the second lead paragraph, I had actually already made an edit already resolving the issues that I had brought up.

But then the user "Erenyeager008" reverted my edit, and I could tell that if I reverted their reversion, there would just be an edit war, so I made this post to try to resolve any disagreements.

So I made my post, presented my arguments, and I waited for about a week for a response, but there were none. Therefore, I made the relevant edit again.

Now that user has shown up again just to revert my edit: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Oppenheimer_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1162791405

They claim "Restored some relevant info , and improved poor english", when neither are true.

I've decided to revert their changes until they can provide some actual arguments otherwise. Z8n (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the lead section is supposed to summarize the article. See WP:FILMLEAD. LancedSoul (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Which it doesn't do, is my point. Z8n (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction: Which it didn't do. After my corrective edit, it does. Z8n (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've laid out my arguments clearly on this talk page, given Erenyeager008 (the other user) ample time to respond, and generally believe that I have presented a good-faith willingness to engage in discussion and compromise.

Meanwhile, this user refuses to come to the talk page, refuses to lay out any actual arguments, and has generally engaged in unhelpful behavior such as reverting my edits and then leaving bad-faith edit summaries in which they tell me to discuss the matter on the talk page.

I'm not sure what more to do here. Could it be that this user is personally invested in seeing this section preserved because they wrote it, or something? Z8n (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Barbenheimer Edit

This message also appears on the talk page for Barbie.

A section in the marketing/release section should be added for the film's viral "Barbenheimer" phenomenon. At one time it was just silly memes, but it has now turned in to a legitimate talking point about the film's release, with Barbie director Greta Gerwig and star Margot Robbie both commenting and promoting the trend, as well as actor Tom Cruise. It is a part of the film's release undoubtedly, there is no way around it. I will post my now-deleted section below, please check my references and sources for authenticity. BakedintheHole (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

=== "Barbenheimer" ===

Oppenheimer is set to be released theatrically on July 21, 2023, the same day as Barbie, the romantic comedy film directed by Greta Gerwig and based of the line of Barbie dolls by Mattel. Due to the difference in tone and genre between the two films, many social media users across platforms such as Instagram and TikTok have taken to making memes and ironic posts about how the two films represent different audiences, or how the two films should be viewed as a double feature. The popularity of the trend comparing the two films led to the New York Times dubbing the phenomenon "Barbenheimer". Gerwig and Barbie star Margot Robbie have both promoted the connection, posting a photo of themselves attending Oppenheimer on Twitter on June 30, 2023. Actor Tom Cruise also encouraged the cross-promotion, tweeting that he "love[s] a double feature, and it doesn't get more explosive (or more pink) than one with Oppenheimer and Barbie". Nolan himself has not commented on the trend. BakedintheHole (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

At most, it can be a few sentences, or a paragraph under the Marketing section. Dedicating an entire new section to it is silly. Not to mention, it needs to be cut down immensely; a direct quote of a tweet from Tom Cruise is just marketing noise and not notable at all. Z8n (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree on the assessment of it not needing its own section in marketing. The Grimace Shake, which is currently a viral trend akin to the Barbenheimer phenomenon, has an entire section dedicated to its impact on internet and meme culture. The same can be said for many other articles on the site. I agree it can be shaved down, however. I will gladly remove the Cruise section and refine the text. I'll add the new edit soon. BakedintheHole (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid argument. A few sentences under Marketing is all that is needed. Mike Allen 19:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Added it back to the marketing section. It has been deleted several times and risks starting an edit war with some users, so I hope it doesn’t become an issue. BakedintheHole (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Regarding about the full title book in lead

Even if I appreciate about their edit, I saw that someone is edit warring about the full title book in lead. Can we please stop wasting their time, as it is not yet, until the billing block is available soon. LancedSoul (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The billing block should not matter. The common name for the book is American Prometheus, which is sufficient for the film article. Not to mention the subtitle is redundant in identifying the biography as being about Oppenheimer. We already do that here. The subtitle is more for book shopping purposes, and we don't need to worry about that here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone is edit warring again. Its unclear what the subtitle of the book came from billing block on posters and the end of the official trailer. LancedSoul (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't read this talk page earlier. However I do believe the subtitle should be included, as the description of the trailer clearly shows it. I think the "common name" is simply for the article's title, not necessarily how it should be put in other articles. Think Detective Pikachu (film), the title of the movie is clearly Pokémon: Detective Pikachu, but many simply like to call it by the former especially as that's what the games were called, but if the title had to be mentioned in some other article it would generally be as the latter version. IAmNMFlores (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm late, but since the billing block is now available, we do now have subtitle. See here: https://assets.gettyimages.com/bf-boulder-whitelabelbucket-getty-prod/p83rf4nzhg676c69qpb639/v/1109991157/original/386651id1_OPR_Final_27x40_1Sht_RGB.jpg LancedSoul (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I say we do add the subtitle. IAmNMFlores (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Writing credit

@IAmNMFlores: Please discuss here instead of repeatedly reverting with long-winded edit summaries. Firstly, as I have explained twice, Template:Infobox film states to use the |screenwriter= parameter instead of the normal writer field if films divide writing credits between screenplay and story writers. Because this is not the case for Oppenheimer, |writer= should be used instead. Secondly, the official press release from Universal credits Nolan as Written and directed by, not Screenplay by. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you. We should go with exactly how someone is credited. On the official website it says "WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY CHRISTOPHER NOLAN" I think the whole "written for the screen" is a marketing term that's being used because it's already based on a work. Using the written for field in infobox makes the most sense here. Mike Allen

1. You misunderstood the parameter's wording. In the old days, they used to put both screenplay and story credited writers in that parameter and instead put the parentheses "(story)" or "(screenplay)" next to the name. The "story" and "screenwriter" parameters were made after, so that notice is to say not to mix them into the "writer" parameter anymore. Not to mention it disputes this quote from WGA screenwriting credit system: A "Screenplay by" credit may also be used, when the writers for the story and screenplay are different, or in similar circumstances to a screen story credit (either if the work is not mostly original, or in addition to the screen story credit).

2. Press releases have a record of paraphrasing when in paragraph form. For instance, Warner Bros. Pictures, like with Teen Titans Go! To the Movies and Black Adam, would just put "from a screenplay by..." which is not accurate to the final credits. They are also not the final say.

3. If you see WGA screenwriting credit system, they are the true final say on how the writers are credited as, and they put Nolan under "Screenplay by."

4. "Written for the screen and directed by" is not just a marketing term, it's just an optional term used to combine both "screenplay by" and "directed by" credits. It's been used in plenty of movies onscreen, including I'm Thinking of Ending Things, where Kaufman is also given "screenplay by" credit. They can't say "screenplay and directed by" because "screenplay" is not a verb. While they could've used "screenwritten" and/or "screenplay written" that's just how it has been and nothing we can really do about it. IAmNMFlores (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I understood the template documentation perfectly. Under |writer=, it say (emphasis added): Insert the name(s) of the writer(s). This field is primarily used for films where the writer(s) are credited under "Written by". Separate multiple entries using either {{plainlist}} or {{ubl}}. Link each writer to their article if possible. Under |screenplay=, it says (emphasis added): Insert the name(s) of the screenplay writer(s). Separate multiple entries using either {{plainlist}} or {{ubl}}. Use this field instead of the normal writer field if films divide writing credits between screenplay and story writers. Link each writer to their article if possible. |screenplay= is only used in conjunction with |story=, it cannot stand alone. Nolan is credited as Written by, not Screenplay by. There is no one credited as Story by. Hence, the correct parameter is |writer=. It's as simple as that.

The table at the top of the press release literally says Written and Directed by: Christopher Nolan. Not Written for the screen. At this point, I would say the press release clearly trumps the WGA website, as this is the most accurate and up-to-date version of the credits listed directly by the studio. Written and directed by Christopher Nolan is most likely what the billing block and main-on-end titles will say, not Directed by Christopher Nolan and then Screenplay by Christopher Nolan separately. Off the top of my head, I know Avengers: Age of Ultron had Written and directed by Joss Whedon, and accordingly our article uses |writer= instead of |screenplay=. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding this. "Written for the screen and directed by" is NOT the same as "written and directed by".

• "Written for the screen and directed by" = "Screenplay by" and "directed by" credits.
• "Written and directed by" = "Written by" and "directed by" credits.

The fact that you think films with just "screenplay by" credits should just have "Written by" credits on the infobox is completely unfounded and against common practice here, and Template:Infobox film never uses the word "only" as you applied it. It's only your interpretation. Yes, "screenplay by" credits can be absent from "story by" credits, do you know how? The story came from the source material, a screenwriter just adapts the story to a screenplay format, but the story was originally a book and "story by" credits are generally for stories written specifically for the film, so a "story by" credit is absent in most cases with adaptations because they don't come up with the story themselves. If they did, there would vbe a "[screen] story by" credit, but sometimes even if it greatly diverges from the source material, they can still end up with only "screenplay by" credit.

Again, WGA is final say. Press releases and news junkets can say "Written and directed by" all they want because it is technically not untrue, just broad. I'll bet what the end titles will say: "Written for the screen and directed by Christopher Nolan. I have no idea where you got the idea that on-screen credits can't say "Written for the screen and directed by" but I recommend you look them up yourself (I already gave you an example). Lastly, the Age of Ultron example is completely ludicrous, as Whedon was ALWAYS referenced as written and directed by Joss Whedon, and not to mention his WGA credit says Written by, unlike Nolan. Seriously, do more research on how writing credits work. IAmNMFlores (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I never said anything about Written for the screen. The press release says Written and Directed By: Christopher Nolan. I'll drop the link for you again: [1]. Your egregious misreading of Template:Infobox film is troublesome, it seems pretty straightforward to me: if there is one writer credited, and the credit says Written by, use |writer=; if there is one writer credited as Screenplay by and another credited as Story by, use |screenplay= and |story=. For Oppenheimer, there is only one writer credited, and the credit says Written by and not Screenplay by, so we should use |writer=. There's nothing more to it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Another reason to place more trust in the studio-issued press release than the WGA website: The information contained in the "Find a Writer" database is the most current and accurate available to Writers Guild of America West (WGAW). Some of the data is self-reported by writers and not independently verified by WGAW. Users of the database accept the data as is, with no warranty of its accuracy stated or implied. And look, this isn't permanent. Once the payoff poster is released and we get the actual, official, final billing block, that will clear things up for us. Until then, we should go with the most accurate source available. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

On the website for each film it would place a check that reads "WGA verified" or an X that reads "WGA non-verified"; I would've never brought the page up if it wasn't verified. It even says most current and accurate. Either way, let's say the billing block says "written for the screen and directed by", does that mean you'll put Nolan under the "screenplay" parameter, right? IAmNMFlores (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's probably best to just wait until the final poster/trailer with credits is released. WGA have their own guidelines (for the writer's protection in correct pay) and Wikipedia has its own. The writers are still going to be paid accurately even if Wikipedia temporarily credits them wrong. Also, it doesn't make it inaccurate for the readers in the sense that he is still credited as a writer of the film, which he is. Mike Allen 16:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Fine, but if he is credited as "written for the screen and directed by" in the billing block and the infobox does not say "screenplay by", you should expect me for another debate. IAmNMFlores (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, bring it on. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it won't come to another debate. IAmNMFlores (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm coming into this without any previous knowledge of how Template:Infobox film and it's parameters work. After reading through this discussion, it seems pretty clear to me that InfiniteNexus is correct here and has laid out a pretty thorough explanation. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

So the full billing block has arrived, and as I predicted it says Written for the screen [and directed] by. Template:Infobox film had been updated since last time, and without any disputes, one of the additions was this to the screenplay parameter:[T]his field is primarily used for films where the writer(s) are credited under "Screenplay by" or "Written for the screen [and directed; a mutually exclusive credit] by". So can we please change the parameter from writer to screenplay? IAmNMFlores (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Other pages have "written for the screen" credits as "screenplay" on infobox, so I believe this should also be the case for this. Bagelmans (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2023

Release information in Japanese markets should be included

Eg https://variety.com/2023/film/box-office/oppenheimer-christopher-nolan-theatrical-release-japan-1235645752/ 182.152.31.165 (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now The Variety article does not give a definitive date for the film's release in Japan.  Spintendo  11:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Barbenheimer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barbenheimer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbenheimer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023

https://variety.com/2023/film/global/matt-damon-oppenheimer-cast-moved-red-carpet-strike-1235669528/ "It's a $180 million movie.” - chris nolan the movie's budget is now confirmed by the director of the movie Christopher Nolan Harrymode111 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. (see discussion below) Xan747 (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please state where this information is to be placed.

Sorry Xan747 - we keep bumping in to each other. You got this one. Regards,  Spintendo  03:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Top billing

Who should be included in the top billing? 2600:100C:A211:73E1:D847:17E8:7E64:2369 (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? We have the definitive billing structure right now there is zero reason to continue changing it. Rusted AutoParts 04:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Budget

For now, let's keep the budget at $100 million, which is the last properly-sourced number.

For film budgets, we use reliable source (Deadline, NYT, THR, Variety, etc.) in which the author explicitly says what the budget is. It's extremely unusual to take a director's words regarding the budget at face value as a source.

For example: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Barbie_(film) The budget is $145 million because the source article from The New York Times says, "Warner Brothers who bankrolled the roughly $145 million production", not because it's in a quote by Barbie's director.

In Oppenheimer's case, the director Christopher Nolan recently said, "It’s a 180-page script and it’s a $180 million movie" but this is a problematic source for two reasons.

First, it's unclear exactly what he's referring to when he says "it's a $180 million movie". Is he referring to only the production budget? Is he including the marketing budget? Tax breaks? And so on.

Second, the director is throwing out numbers at a red carpet movie premiere, in a very off the cuff manner, and it's likely that he's rounding up or down heavily in order to service the "180 pages. 180 minutes. 180 million budget." rhyme.

So let's stick to $100 million for now until a Deadline or THR or Variety article comes out telling us the actual budget, which usually occurs during the film's opening weekend, which is next week. Z8n (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The $180 million budget has now been confirmed as incorrect - the quote was misreported and Nolan was referring to the 180 minute runtime, not the budget. arthomnix (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Grammar

In the article it says "He had began by trying to find..." Begun (not began) is the past participle of begin. Karate Kid part II (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Release

It has been reported on NPR (15 July) that the release has been postponed. The delay is related to the actor/writer strikes. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:ECF9:6F3F:2E4B:BF56 (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Not true. Mike Allen 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

According to Variety on 14 July, the red carpet procedure has been canceled but the movie will have its US premiere on 17 July and nation-wide opening on 21 July: https://variety.com/2023/film/news/oppenheimer-us-premiere-cancels-red-carpet-sag-strike-1235670707/ 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:ECF9:6F3F:2E4B:BF56 (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

So the release has not been postponed. Mike Allen 01:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That article does not say anything about the film being delayed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 23 July 2023

Jean Tatlock is introduced in the plot summary as a physicist. She was a psychiatrist and physician. Lacanian toes (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind this was corrected! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacanian toes (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 Already done ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Plot is missing

As the title says, when you click the plot there is absolutely nothing. Needs to be fixed. Alkqn (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The empty plot section has been removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2023

i want to edit this page please Ajdkek3o (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It is protected due to vandalism, you may post editing suggestions here. --Mvqr (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the supporting cast paragraph for the intro as well the infobox, please only include the top billing cast: Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr. and Florence Pugh. 2600:100C:A211:73E1:D847:17E8:7E64:2369 (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is Rami Malek mentioned in the lead and not David Dastmalchian when both were some of the last to have their roles revealed? Are there any sources of starring? 2600:100C:A211:73E1:D847:17E8:7E64:2369 (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Same goes for David Krumholtz. 2600:100C:A211:73E1:D847:17E8:7E64:2369 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the top billing cast according to the official press kit. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Please put a note or source it there then. 2600:100C:A211:73E1:D847:17E8:7E64:2369 (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

One needs to register to sign in so please add an annotation. 2600:100C:A211:73E1:D847:17E8:7E64:2369 (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This is NOT mentioned in the poster provided. Please upload another poster that has this list. 2600:100C:A112:99FE:688F:6A4E:5C72:C50B (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Xan747 (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Last scene of the film is missing from plot

During the last scene of the film, one of Strauss' aides points out that maybe Oppenheimer and Einstein weren't talking about him by the lake at Berkley (?), but rather something "more important." In the film, the conversation is revealed to be Oppenheimer reminiscing over the report that detonation of the bomb may start a chain-reaction that is not limited to the core of the gadget. He remarks that they did (referring to the socio-political fallout of creating the bomb), which is why Einstein looked crushed. MarichanIsCute (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Cast list

The cast list is too long, Wikipedia isn't IMDb. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Excessive use of the word "had"

Google Chrome counts 61 usages of the word "had" in the article. They are mostly in the Production section and most of them are unnecessary. Someone needs to fix this mess, but I don't have the time or energy right now. Coolcaesar (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"7 21 23" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 7 21 23 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 24 § 7 21 23 until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 17:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"21 7 23" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 21 7 23 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 24 § 21 7 23 until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 17:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted with the justification it was "vandalism"

@Z8n:

I made a good faith edit of the led. The led was poorly written and I did improve its presentation and content. [2].

You reverted my edit with the justification that it was "vandalism". https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Oppenheimer_(film)&diff=next&oldid=1166371592

My edit was not vandalism. Please explain why your reverted my edit claiming it was "vandalism". Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 02:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Your edit was so detrimental and invasive that it triggered an editor to add the Needs copy editing tag to the article, which was resolved simply by reverting your edit.

I agree that your edit wasn't vandalism per se, but the end result was that your edit had to be reverted just as in the case of vandalism, so I used that word as a shorthand. Z8n (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Z8n:

Your reply to me is insulting.

Seriously? Did you even read what I edited? Your "reason" justifying reverting my edit is "Your edit was so detrimental and invasive that it triggered an editor to add the Needs copy editing tag to the article, which was resolved simply by reverting your edit."

Resolved simply by reverting my edit? No, this issue is not resolved.

Editor @Lancedsoul: indicated his "opinion" that "Lead needs copy editing". What copy editing precisely? Lancedsoul did not indicate what his issue was and too lazy to make the copying editing he thought appropriate. You read his comment, decided on using the nuclear option, and reverted with a disingenuous justification of "vandalism".

I strongly dispute what Lancedsoul said about the Led and I strongly dispute your preemptive revert that you claim was necessary due "edit was so detrimental and invasive". My edit was neither detrimental nor invasive. My god, where does your belated accusatory "justification" come from? You need to "do the work" before making such an insulting "justification".

Read my edit. Tell me exactly what about it was "detrimental and invasive". The tenet's of Wikipedia involve communication and collaboration. Where is your communication and collaboration?

Your revert of my edit appears to be gatekeeping and also appears that you are claiming ownership of the article.

Read my edit and please explain yourself. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 19:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

The plot listed in the “Synopsis” section should begin with or mention that the structure of the story focuses on the confirmation hearing of Lewis Strauss and the hearing on the status of Oppenheimers AEC clearance status. Pickflod (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Ya know, this kind of drive-by response to edit requests is completely useless. This is likely a good idea. Just because it's not expressed in "X -> Y" form is no reason to shoot it down. Let people active here on the talk page respond. EEng 07:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2023 (2)

Sorry in advance if I am not editing the talk page correctly. I would like to ask the people that edit this page to make one small edit. Move David Krumholtz as Isidor Issac Rabbi further up the cast list. He is much more prominent than many others that he is listed under. Like more screen time, more lines etc. At the very least he should be above Casey Afflect as Boris Pash. To accurately portray how prominent he is in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:7632:8600:8CC6:31CE:8601:81DD (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

If consensus is established here on this page, then obviously one of the editors participating will be able to implement the change, and no edit-protected template will be needed anyway. So there's no reason to use the template before getting consensus, and no reason to use it after either. The whole edit-request process is pointless on a page with experienced editors active on it. EEng 07:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Oppenheimer (film).jpg File:Teen_Opie_101.JPG

bhagvad geeta

Add the controversy that it created in India and how this film hurted the hindu sentiments in India while many liberal Hindus don't consider religion as much but most conservative Hindus really offended and this should be added in page so that it give a message to people and filmmakers that Indians are not happy and regarding hindu scriptures their research is lacking and you can't hurt sentiments of community because of creative freedom . Sagarrathee766 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sagarrathee766, do you have a source for this? Valereee (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

NM, looks like that's been in the article since before you posted this, section on censorship in India? Valereee (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Use this. Kailash29792 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

India controversy

Apparently this film is being condemned by some people in India because of a scene where two characters read from a book of Hindu scriptures while having sex. [3] I think this is worth including, even though some might find the criticism disingenuous coming from the same religion that gave us the Kama Sutra, Tantric, etc.

Speaking of which, did Tibetan Buddhists get upset at Miley Cyrus? 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:8734 (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: mainstream Western media is now covering this too: [4] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:8734 (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense... Christians in the US would go ape if a movie like this had characters doing the same but reading from the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.188.108.203 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Which would also be kind of ironic, because, you know. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:8734 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The CNN source is being misrepresented in this article. The CNN article says that, despite some whining by extremist people, the film has been received well in most quarters in India. This is not a major issue, just some noisy people trying to get political mileage out of imagined outrage. The majority of Hindus do not have any problem with this scene, and regard Oppenheimer highly.103.77.137.235 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree on two counts. Firstly, the fact that many Hindus regard Oppenheimer highly does not mean the controversy doesn't exist. Secondly, "whining by extremist people" just seems in poor taste. You're insinuating that all criticism of the scene is from "extremist" people, when people who respect the religion and who also don't possess any extremist ideologies have criticized the scene with justification and reasoning to back it up. Here's a former journalist critiquing it,[5] and here are several Twitter posts from regular people criticizing it.[6] Making a sweeping generalization about all these people with the term "extremist whining" is unfounded. Perhaps leaving the section in, with an addendum that states (with citation) that despite the controversy the film has been very well-received in India, would be more appropriate. Arvindhmani (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Meh, some former journalist and three twitter randos hardly count as notable enough for inclusion here. 103.77.137.235 (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion

Please include in the "See Also" section, Oppenheimer (TV series) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

how to pronounce Cillian Murphy 2601:84:8901:5F20:400:228B:4E00:5250 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Editing banned?

What vandalism? PencilSticks0823 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Non-linear structure

The story is told in a non-linear order, with multiple time periods being intercut with each other throughout the film. Probably best for the synopsis to be in chronological order like it currently is, but it might be worth putting a note at the top of the section to reflect its unconventional structure. 2601:201:8A80:77D0:17D8:7FBC:2EC3:B13B (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Explanatory note on the film's critical response is superfluous

In the 'Critical Reception' section, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic ratings are already mentioned, both indicating universal acclaim for the film, with excerpts from critic reviews underneath. It's authentic enough for readers and consistent with wikipedia movie page writings style. Thus, a summarisation of the film's critical reception at the start of the article under this section is superfluous and redundant, it doesn't serve the readers whatsoever. Additionally, it's unusual, given a film with high rating, that even the brief note is accompanied with criticism of the film. This is not to say that a film with higher rating doesn't have detractors but normally this kind of summarisation(having critique) is provided only when that certain film has polarised or divided critics which is not in the case of Oppenheimer. Such kind of notes would be understandable on a page of a film like Watchmen, Joker.

So, the gist is that the edit in question is not constructive, does not follow the standard and doesn't serve the readers whatsoever. There are reviews already below provided in the Reception, most of them highly positive might I add, which readers can form an opinion from. If anything there should be rather excerpt from reviews which are mixed or negative toward the film, pointing out its flaws. Erenyeager008 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

RT doesn't indicate "universal acclaim", MC's Metascore definition does. The summarisation does not summarize anything about "universal acclaim", it shows that there were consistent and frequent praises/criticisms of various aspects of the film from reliable sources, which is totally relevant and serves the readers a lot. You have been blocked because of the changes you made regarding this topic. It's surprising that you're still trying to take ownership of the page by providing unreasonable and invalid justifications for the same topic. For the last time, I recommend you read MOS:FILMCRITICS and stop wasting other editors' time. ภץאคгöร 15:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Your response doesn't answer anything I said. The summarisation is unnecessary and there is no reason it should be here. If anything, you should rather add negative or mixed reviews of the film in the reception section,that would be a more appropriate and constructive edit as they would point out flaws of the film,your edit would make more sense that way. Erenyeager008 (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you not read what I wrote above? WP:STATUSQUO, MOS:FILMCRITICS, WP:3RR. That's all. ภץאคгöร 16:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The official book about the film is already available as an e-book

Google Books has already posted the e-book version here. It has a lot of interesting information not already in the article. For example, the book reveals that the idea for the film's ending came to Nolan in spring 2021 when he was in bed, and then he jumped out of bed and ran to his study to write down the ending on a pad before going back to sleep. Unfortunately, like most e-books, the e-book lacks hard copy pagination. It will be impossible to add such citations until the hard copy book is actually published in October. Coolcaesar (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

change "IGN critic Siddhanta Adlakha" to "IGN critic Siddhant Adlakha" - corrected spelling Batatomic7 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done, good catch, thanks.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 20:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is New Mexico's critique

I know there are articles out there about how New Mexicans are irritated about the lack of representation of how awful the testing had been on the communities and how the government basically lied about it. I heard they asked to at least be acknowledged but were denied too. 63.153.135.225 (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly my point. It looks like the edits history page and this talks page is intentionally spammed by fake discussions on non-topics to coax a semi-protect label to to the effect of burying deep down this real issue. If the Nolan's non-mention/erasure of the downwinders of the New Mexico is one count crime, the non-mention/erasure of all these criticism in the wikipedia is another degree of crime. It is a shame that the "Critical Reception" section of the article paints the viewer's perception of the film as all overwhelmingly flawless. It is not. Here are just a couple of the links for the relevant criticisms that the wiki article misses:

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2023-07-19/oppenheimer-extols-atomic-bomb-triumph-but-ignores-health-effects-on-those-living-nearby

https://theprint.in/feature/beyond-the-reel/oppenheimer-joins-the-ranks-of-wolf-of-wall-street-a-biopic-that-lionises-the-hero-no-warts/1682442/ 14.139.163.86 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The "Critical Reception" section is about the critical reception to the film as a film, not the discussion of historical accuracy or the airing of grievances of parties involved in the actual events. Describing that as "erasure" or even a crime is laughably histrionic. I as a reader would like to see a separate section for historical accuracy, just as long as the content is fairly weighted and not just a dumping ground for every politics-baiting thinkpiece floating around. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:A8B5:A447:BE3F:643A (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's talk about... that scene with that verse from Bhagavad Gita

Just found some articles about the ones defending the controversial reading of Bhagavad Gita during a sex scene between Oppenheimer and Tatlock.

• Allen, Ben, Cillian Murphy: “I wasn't great craic to hang out with on the Oppenheimer set” GQ UK 24 July 2023
• Oppenheimer: Mahabharat's Krishna Nitish Bharadwaj defends controversial Bhagavad Gita sex scene, says 'physical act...' Daily News and Analysis July 25, 2023
• Dubey, Pragya, Author Shobhaa De Defends Oppenheimer Sex Scene, Says “5-Star Hotels Keep Gita Next To Bed…” Hauterrfly July 26, 2023
• Bohra, Anurag Singh (ed.), Kangana Ranaut Defends Oppenheimer Sex Scene, Calls It ‘Bhakti In Raw Form’ India.com July 31, 2023

Will these sources help this article to counter the undue weight thing when only containing a response from Uday Mahurkar? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 08:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Nolan's direction

"..... and received critical acclaim, with particular praise for its cast, screenplay, and visuals."

Why every time someone add "Nolan's direction" to the praise, it get removed ? 37.238.17.11 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Something repeated in the plot

As I read the plot section, I noticed that the parts about Oppenheimer and Einstein's discussion was repeated.

When it first appears in the section, the subject of their discussion was clearly stated. However, the end seems to restate this, even repeating the statement about the world-destroying chain reaction.

This has to be fixed. But I don't know how. Deleting the second mention is out of the question, as it helps emphasize on its purposeful placement at the end of the movie. Should I make the first mention a little more vague? Baxyofh4rd (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks as though the repetition may have been addressed, however I feel like the transition from Oppenheimer receiving the Fermi award in 1963 to this final conversation could be smoothed over. Maybe add something at the beginning of the last sentence like, "In a flashback sequence, it is revealed that Einstein and Oppenheimer's conversation..." just to make the context more clear. As is, it seems to come out of nowhere. 2600:1700:3810:B1A0:8C18:6EF3:5105:3EF (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Budget

Currently, the article is listing the $100 Million budget. However, we have seen several other sources, including Nolan himself state that film's production budget was well over that number and closer to $180 Million. Is this a topic worth revisiting? MLcausey (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There was a correction reported in July:

Correction: Variety previously quoted Christopher Nolan as saying Oppenheimer's budget was $180 million. This was a misquote, with Nolan referring to the film's 180-minute runtime. Universal has confirmed that the previously reported $100 million budget is a more accurate figure. The following story has been updated.[7]

Lapadite (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracy Reg Johnson

In 1963 Lyndon Johnson was Vice President until John F. Kennedy's assassination, suggest edit? 172.79.200.224 (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No, its accurate. While John F. Kennedy did award the Enrico Fermi award to Oppenheimer, he was assassinated a week later thus necessitating that Johnson present the actual award. This all occurred in 1963. MLcausey (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, got that time line slightly wrong. Johnson presented the award a week after Kennedy's assassination. MLcausey (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Superfluous info in reception section

Someone keeps adding superfluous info to the reception section, about the film needing to gross $400 million to break even and/or make a profit. It quotes unnamed, “rival studios” as the source. The info doesn’t need to be in the article. It “quotes” unnamed sources. And it’s also a moot point, since the film has been confirmed through reliable sources to be highly profitable. Please do not add this info back, as it’s both questionable and irrelevant. Juneau Mike (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. "Insiders at rival studios estimate “Oppenheimer” will need to generate at least $400 million at the global box office in order to turn a profit." The supposed "insiders" are unnamed and is only a small mention in a part of an wider article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Los Alamos location visit

[8] Interesting semi-fluff article from LANL's public relations operation about Nolan and company visiting Los Alamos for the movie shoot. Seems worth using something from it in the article. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Uranium miners

[9] Criticizes film for not discussing the plight of uranium miners in the then-Belgian Congo who dug up the radioactive minerals that went into the bombs. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Poisoned apple

Re historical accuracy section: "The scene where Oppenheimer poisons his professor's apple did occur, but was embellished."

I've been reading some Oppenheimer biographies in conjunction with trying to help with the J. Robert Oppenheimer article. It is not definitely known that the poisoned apple thing actually happened. Oppenheimer told his friends that he had done it, and his (alarmed) friends notified the authorities at Cambridge and there was an incident, but no one else seems to have actually seen the poisoned apple, and Oppie at that time was experiencing at minimum some serious mood disorders. He later said in an interview that it really did happen and that the poison was cyanide, but American Prometheus still discusses it at length as a nuanced question. I'd say it probably happened but I'd suggest rewriting that sentence with direct reference to American Prometheus instead of to a movie mag. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Added: Oppenheimer's grandson discusses that scene in the movie and American Prometheus's take on the question. This seems like a good article to cite. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The key problem here is WP:AUTO. Anecdotes that people tell about themselves need to be taken with a pinch of salt, because they can easily be inaccurate, exaggerated or just plain false. We may never know exactly what happened here, but the article should make clear that Oppenheimer appears to be the primary source for this story, and that it does not come from independent people.[10]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, and what really happened is unknowable. The best picture we can have is a combination of probabilities. I like to think our readers aren't stupid and they understand that Charles Oppenheimer doesn't have a definite answer any more than we do. His opinion still counts for something. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:E23B (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Real-life Barbenheimer

[11] Sort of funny. About Barbara Oppenheimer, a professor and distant relative of Robert, getting attention because of her name. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:E23B (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this at Talk:Barbenheimer? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks ;). 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:E23B (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy Section

This section reads as an IMDb Trivia page and includes too many specifics and superfluous details. This isn't the arena to go line by line on accuracies or inaccuracies, but to rather discuss the overall film's adherence to accuracy. The Jean Tatlock section makes sense, but the apple poisoning seems way too specific. I recommend that it be trimmed to just general character and overarching plot notes - what are people's thoughts? Additionally, there's a slight typo, but I don't have access to revise. CaptJackHaddock (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It is still a dramatic film, not a documentary. So there already is the assumption of the existence of variance from strict historical fact for the purpose of narrative clarity and cohesion. I think we should probably dump everything after the first line and replace it with something like, "Differences from historical consensus predominantly center around fictionalized versions of conversations or interactions between Oppenheimer and other noted figures. The poison apple scene in particular was significantly embellished from varying historical accounts." MLcausey (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Furthermore, I think that there should be more historians providing their feedback on the historical accuracy of the film which can make the praise more credible. S09C (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to start a topic making this same point, and am glad to see that others have noticed the problem as well.

It's nonsensical to say "The film was heavily praised for its accuracy" and then follow it up by having multiple lengthy paragraphs listing off every minor detail that the film changed or got wrong, especially when the color sequences are intended to be inherently subjective and biased from Oppenheimer's POV. Z8n (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed what I believe to be the most unnecessary parts:

> Throughout the film, marbles are dropped into two glass jars to show the progress of the bombs. This likely didn't occur, but is a representation for the audience on the progress and struggles.

"This likely didn't occur". So it's not even a certainty. Removed.

> The relationship between Oppenheimer and Jean Tatlock is heavily debated by historians. Oppenheimer is known to have spent one night with her in Manhattan, but it is unknown if they had sex. Another scene in the film shows them also together where Oppenheimer says "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds" and is given the Bhagavad Gita. This scene is fictional.

"but it is unknown if they had sex". Again, no need to give so much weight to something that has neither been confirmed nor denied.

> Albert Einstein and Oppenheimer did have a good relationship (though they were at odds as they studied different fields), but the conversations shown in the film are fictional (it was Hans Bethe who confirmed and Emil Konopinski who reconfirmed the odds of a chain reaction causing the atmosphere to catch fire were near zero).

"This scene is fictional"

"the conversations shown in the film are fictional"

Most likely, yes, they are fictional, but seeing as how Oppenheimer didn't leave behind a meticulous record of every conversation he ever shared with Tatlock and Einstein, the scenes can't really be disproven in a definitive sense, so no point listing them here.

For comparison, Dunkirk's historical accuracy section: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dunkirk_(2017_film)#Historical_accuracy Z8n (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the person who wrote most of the historical accuracy section. I will preface this by saying that I was very pleased with how accurate the film was, both initially while watching it and afterwards after researching it more.

I am kind of a historical-accuracy slob so I like to go on the hunt for details that movies got wrong. Overall I was happy with the movie, I'm glad it wasn't something like Churchill (2017) which everything from the overall plot to the small details was wrong. Anyway, as a result I do get kind of carried away with errors, partly because I get annoyed by them (sometimes), partly to warn others about it who aren't so history-inclined. So I appreciate the correction. I will definitely try to keep in mind as the intentions I have for saying them can be easily misunderstood by others, I didn't really mean to trash the movie, but I can see where that would come from. I did plan to add more of what it got right, but couldn't really find much minus the obvious (the test site was indeed at Los Alamos) or small things (like the mattress).

Also, the reason why I reverted and then re-reverted the edit was because I saw the initial edit and was confused why half the section was deleted for no reason provided and it was only after that that I read the talk page and saw why and felt like an idiot. Jamisonsupame (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Has the "inaccuracy" of the small 50-star flags being waved by a cheering crowd been discussed? Or could it be mentioned? There are several sources for this, e.g.: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2023-07-25/oppenheimer-mistake-blooper-american-flags-christopher-nolan, https://people.com/eagle-eyed-historians-spot-mistake-in-oppenheimer-involving-the-american-flag-7565185 Alandeus (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard Brody review

I'm annoyed that the Richard Brody review quote was removed from the critical response section.[12] (Disclosure: I was the one who first added that quote). The section has been rewritten quite a lot, so it is more like a marketing piece now, instead of trying to show multiple viewpoints neutrally. I didn't try to identify the other changes but only noticed that the quote was missing, so looked for the diff.

I can understand if the comparison to the Wikipedia article was a little too meta, but the review had other worthwhile things to say, basically comparing the movie to a History Channel movie. I found it very helpful in understanding what to expect from the movie. There's nothing wrong about the more positive reviews, but they didn't address the same issues. So I think some snippet from that review (maybe not the same snippet) should be re-inserted in the article.

Since that section was edited quite extensively with much material removed without discussion, someone more familiar with the article's development might want to check that series of edits too. Almost any movie will receive both good and bad reviews, and the article should reflect that. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:7F28 (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Edits by User:PencilSticks0823 on 6 September 2023

User:PencilSticks0823 altered two of my edits on 6 September 2023 for reasons that are clearly incorrect.

I had added this sentence to the plot summary: "Strauss rants in private that Oppenheimer would do it again if he had the chance because it made him important." In this edit, User:PencilSticks0823 changed this to: "Strauss privately rages against Oppenheimer" on the grounds that the sentence was a run-on sentence and "it" was unclear. Neither is true. Please review the difference between independent and dependent clauses. Yes, it is legal to use multiple dependent clauses in English. Also, "it" is clear from context: Strauss is referring to Oppenheimer's accomplishment of building the atomic bomb.

I had restored the use of periods in U.S. Army (in reference to Leslie Groves) on the basis of MOS:TIES because this is an American film. In formal written American English, U.S. is traditionally written with periods. In this edit, User:PencilSticks0823 reverted that on the following grounds: "We need to maintain consistency across the article, which means either using periods in every acronym or none of them." In earlier edit descriptions, User:PencilSticks0823 had claimed that such deletion is required by "site guidelines."

I suggest reading those guidelines. In particular, please review MOS:US, which states in pertinent part, "the use or non-use of periods (full stops) should also be consistent with other country abbreviations in the same article." Notice the qualifier "country abbreviations". There are no other country abbreviations in the article. Coolcaesar (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The conversation between Oppenheimer and Einstein at the end of the film must also be detailed at the end of this article.

I understand the intent to tell the film’s story chronologically in order to improve reader clarity, but the entire film leads up to that scene at the end, and so I believe it is appropriate to detail it at the end of the article. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

PencilSticks0823, Wikipedia's job is not to tell the story as the film tells. If readers want to experience that buildup of suspense, they should watch the film instead of reading Wikipedia. If there's a more concise way of summarizing a film in a shorter and more natural manner then that should be the preferred way. Similar to Tatlock's suicidee and all that. This makes the plot section even more organized, with the first detailing Oppenheimer's expanding connections, the second about the development, the third about the bombings, and the fourth about the hearing. It gives a good understandable encapsulation of the film. GeraldWL 05:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be a balance between organization and thematic connection. I can accept detailing Tatlock’s suicide early, but not misplacing the ending. It’s inaccurate. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

PencilSticks0823, I'd like to know how, in an encyclopedic manner, placing the revelation at the end improves the summary. When readers want to understand the film, what makes placing it at the end in any way informative? I don't see what is there to lose by editing the plot that way. Sure, the awarding day isn't really the ending per the script, but if Nolan had rearranged the film in a linear fashion, that would've been the ending. That's the whole point of organization. GeraldWL 05:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you that detailing the film’s events chronologically is more important, but the inaccuracy of ending the summary with Kitty rejecting Teller is inaccurate and thus confusing to readers. This synopsis needs to accurately detail the movie in such a way that somebody who has not seen it would still know crucial plot points, including and especially how it ends. I’ve compromised with you by leaving the Tatlock line unchanged, as I agree it’s not essential to the plot, but the ending most definitely is. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

PencilSticks0823, I'm glad that we can have middle ground as of now regarding Tatlock's suicide. I still couldn't help, however, but think readers wouldn't be confused by the plot. The "in-universe" descriptor in MOS:PLOT describes this well: plots "should be written in an out-of-universe style, presenting the narrative from a displaced, neutral frame of reference", because "Although an in-universe style may be more engaging for prose, it may also [...] be overly wordy." Nolan chose to edit the film in such non-linear style for emotional purposes; this can be discussed more appropriately in the Post-production section. It does not improve our knowledge about what the film is about. And frankly, if Tatlock's suicide is allowed to be linear, then so should the ending. We can't just give special treatment to the ending because it feels more emotional to us. GeraldWL 06:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but my opinion isn’t based on the emotional intent of the film. The depiction should most definitely be objective and dispassionate, but not at the cost of readers being confused. Imagine someone reading the article before watching the movie, and then being confused when the movie doesn’t cut to credits at the end of the 1963 flash-forward, or someone gets to that point in the movie but is now wondering why they haven’t seen a seemingly crucial scene, detailed earlier in our synopsis and yet has not appeared so far in the actual movie. In almost all cases I agree that film synopses should be written chronologically to improve reader clarity, but I believe this is a rare case in which writing it chronologically, at least for this specific scene, is actually more confusing for readers. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

PencilSticks0823, we can say that same thing with Tatlock: readers would watch the film and wonder, "Wait, now we're seeing Tatlock, she's not killing herself?" It would be later in the film when they realize the film has a more complex way of storytelling, and remark "Ohhh so that's when the plot happens." But that is the point of plots: for those who just finished watching the film, it gives them a concise summary in case they missed some stuff; for those eager to watch, it gives an "in the nutshell" as they await how the filmmakers tell a 3-minute prose in a 3-hour film. Thus I'd argue that by making it as concise as possible, the plot makes readers less confused, whether they start with Wikipedia or the film. By ordering the film by scene (note that we should give the same weight for the ending and Tatlock's suicide), we're essentially recreating the non-linear fashion which-- as we both agreed-- isn't the purpose of plots. GeraldWL 07:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think Tatlock’s suicide has nearly as much importance as the ending, that’s why I’m trying to compromise by only changing the latter. I’d appreciate it if you would respect that. I also just think the synopsis looks ugly, from a writing perspective, if it ends with the 1963 flash-forward. I’ve said my piece, and I can be relatively sure that most of the other editors of this article agree with me given that you’re the only one who is insisting upon changing the ending. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

PencilSticks0823, I'm sorry if I seemingly feel nitpicky and forceful on this. Input from other editors are welcome, and I'd accept it if other editors side with your arguments. I was intendedly explaining why I believe the lengthening is redundant, though I understand my arguments might have been too lengthy for a minor aspect of the plot. I will leave the plot as it is now. Thanks for the chilled discussion! GeraldWL 07:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Just saw this. While I disagree with User:PencilSticks0823 on other issues (to which they failed to respond above), I fully concur with User:PencilSticks0823 on this issue. The nonlinear narrative is itself an core element of the film's plot because of how it opens up the ability to use the flashback device to draw a powerful parallel between the unstoppable chain reaction of one atomic bomb and the unstoppable chain reaction of the nuclear arms race. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Film ratings in lede

Are the details of the following sentence really significant enough to be the lede? "The film is Nolan's fourth to receive an R-rating in the United States, preceded by Following (1998), Memento (2000) and Insomnia (2002)." –St.nerol (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Opening discussion for how best to word introduction

Noticed ongoing arguing over how best to introduce this this movie wikipage. Some say there’s too much spam and others say it’s too specific or wonky. I threw my hat in the ring, brahs. Maybe we can come to a consensus on what works and what don’t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TropicAxe (talk • contribs) 15:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Your addition is just mentioned in the lead, so is not a good summarization. It also belongs to Barbenheimer: "As an act of counterprogramming, the simultaneous release of Barbie and Oppenheimer plays like someone’s idea of a cosmic joke...". ภץאคгöร 09:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You completely ignored my larger concerns, brah. TropicAxe (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Metacritic

In the Critical response section, the line about Metacritic is duplicated. 65.130.209.193 (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Critical reception in lead section

There seems to be edit warring about how to report the overall critical reception in the lead section. Per WP:LEADCITE, it's time to provide inline citations for contentious material. I've done so for two aspects -- Murphy's performance and the visuals, using the Rotten Tomatoes critics' consensus. I did not see anything for screenplay, so I removed that, along with other aspects for which there was not an overarching report. Remember that none of us editors are allowed to look at individual reviews and determine for ourselves what critics thought overall. This violates WP:SYNTH. We only report the overall observations that reliable sources have made. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have issued a warning here to 216.200.84.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who persists here in removing sourced content and adding unsourced content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like 207.11.72.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a sock of the above, reverting The Herald. Could be that the IP hopping is a way to avoid 3RR. Will request a RFPP. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I already requested protection at RFPP. My apologies. Edwordo13 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see it! No worries, I apologize. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Erik Dunno if this was in response to the section I opened above for discussion, brah. Noticed however several contributors with and without accounts are opposed to verbiage in dispute. Some want Nolan to be acknowledged as the director in the lede. Others feel it as improperly sourced. Some think the word “visuals” is too vague and muddies the introduction as uncertainly over its meaning; special effects or photography or set design, etcetera.

It confuses moi, and it has been pointed out that it is redundant; with mention of “visuals” already in the section for critics. Doesn’t seem like an argument over its inclusion or sourcing but whether it is significant enough to include in the lede which should be concise.

We should open a debate on this forum and vote as I’ve seen elsewhere, brother. Better than squabbling. TropicAxe (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the section above did not seem to me to be about this topic. Apologies for the redundancy. To clarify, the lead section should summarize the article body. The "Critical reception" section is tricky because it's primarily individual reviews, with overarching assessments (not of the individual reviews in the section but in the world) at the top. It's not like we ever get such a section where the overarching assessments make up all or most of the section. So I'm okay with the redundancy of the overarching assessments in the lead section. At the very minimum, we can say that the film was critically acclaimed, but if possible, we should go a little further and explain why, backed by reliable sources. Any thoughts on that consideration? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"Several contributors with and without accounts" have been editing disruptively, are suspected of sockpuppetry and are likely the same person/people. It's why the page is protected again. Therefore there has never been any real opposition to the reception in the lead that would actually warrant discussion. The sources report the most praised aspects of the film as "its screenplay, the performances of the cast (particularly Murphy and Downey), and the visuals". I'm not sure what the reason is for removing or changing "visuals" when even RT's critical consensus explicitly mentions it, in addition to other sources. ภץאคгöร 20:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Nyxaros, the Rotten Tomatoes critics' consensus mentions Murphy's performance and the visuals. However, I am not seeing the justification for "screenplay". If it is this, the screenplay or writing isn't actually touched on in the aggregate text. That text only says, "His performance is being celebrated, though many in the movie’s cast have been isolated for praise or recognized collectively as a stellar ensemble piece." When RT samples a bunch of reviews under each section, it doesn't draw any conclusion for that section's theme. (I find this lazy punting and have seen the trade papers do the same, unfortunately. If only they summarized more fully, it could be useful.) Is that where the "screenplay" justification is from? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Erik Appreciate your candor and politeness, brah.

Everyone seems to agree this work of art received “widespread critical praise”. No problem there.

Dont know why Nolan’s directorial contribution is so controversial. But we should leave it be until other contributors can explain their beef with Nolan as auteur.

Seems to be a beef about aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic as a reliable source. The advice of Wikipedia film forums recommends against giving those too much value when content is questioned. An aggregator with a bit of editorializing doesn’t speak of journalistic integrity. Upon closer inspection's just seems like dogma and a lazy habit of how Wikipedia projects are often handled. We can do better that that with all the bickering going on.

The critics liken the movie to a courtroom drama like “A Few Good Men” with stellar ensemble acting, solid writing, and praise for Nolan’s vision. It’s not being praised like a special effects movie for its visuals unlike say https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(2013_film). For purposes of the lede, it’s misleading and confusing and as other contributors have pointed out it’s well covered by the rest of the entry.

@Nyxaros What’s your deal, dude? Not everything is a conspiracy. I see one anonymous user blocked for “disruptive editing” on others’ talk-pages and no mention of block evading or socking:

• Special:Contributions/216.200.84.120

A deep dive into your squabble reveals a failure to enforce your complaint to a couple of moderators:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Quinlan&diff=prev&oldid=1176009048

You can’t just dismiss everyone you don’t agree w/ based upon on your accusations w/o supporting evidence presented in the correct forums, and one moderator as recent as today went as far as to look into your allegations of socking by anonymous contributors only to discover that is likely untrue based upon their investigative tools & expertise:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1177205621

Exploiting perceived drama to push your own preferences I’m pretty sure violates the same rules you keep citing, dude. TropicAxe (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That clearly is not a "deep dive". I don't have to cite you which admin blocked which IP. The same way I don't have to "consult you on the forum before deciding for you what I think is best" because I don't decide for you and I don't care for your actions. You received a feedback and literally changed nothing from your addition except replacing it just a bit in the lead. Your summarization was not good and definitely did not belong to the lead, so I moved it to the obvious place that it fits in, with proper citation template to help the page. What you think after that is not my problem, especially when you didn't move it back. PS. Your own synthesis, starting with "a courtroom drama like “A Few Good Men”..., doesn't mean anything unless you provide reliable sources. Since you don't know the issue that has been going on with this page and related pages like Barbie (film), I suggest you should just not comment on and accuse other editors for "dismissing everyone they don't agree" and stuff. The link that you presented doesn't look into my "allegations", I'm clearly not involved in that discussion so it seems like you made a comment that does not correspond to facts. ภץאคгöร 07:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

If you want to address Nyxaros's conduct, maybe split out that discussion?

We need to verify every aesthetic statement, even if it's "obvious" to us. If it's obvious, it's likely easy to verify. The challenge is getting more specific with overarching assessments. Regarding "visuals", it's completely appropriate per RT writing, "Oppenheimer marks another engrossing achievement from Christopher Nolan that benefits from Murphy's tour-de-force performance and stunning visuals." Perhaps we can paraphrase this? Though it's admittedly vague on referring to visual effects and/or cinematography. In any case, none of us can't personally say that the film is not being praised for its visuals to personally override a reliable source. We have to follow the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Erik Assuming this is open for all to give our 2 cents from the peanut gallery.

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be simply a scrapbook of quotes from the press copied-and-pasted into oblivion. It's really the art of paraphrasing imho. "Paraphrasing" seems par for the course. "Imagery" has been used here as the word in place of "visuals". Obviously the 'look of Oppeheimer' is being celebrated. But to clarify what exactly is meant by that, I'm guessing it's 'the images'. Critics talk about the underwhelming bomb sequence as deliberately so, with our focus meant to be placed on the characters reactions, intercutting to their faces, the images of them, as they look upon the horror of their creation in both awe and terror. Maybe give that a try? The thesaurus is a good friend in all this. My 2 cents for what it is worth. 50.238.87.250 (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I see this was added. I don't find the Hindustan Times source appropriate for overarching assessments. It's really #7 that's the overarching assessment, and the other points are just the periodical's own take. And I found the popping-up of this little-used registered account suspicious, too. Potentially big sock drawer... Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Erik It's bad form to cast WP:ASPERSIONS at the expense of focusing efforts on substance over drama and personalities when the stakes are so low here. We are arguing over what exactly... a few words in the lead paragraphs? lol Hypothetically one could take the same approach and for argument's sake falsely accuse you of popping into tag-team with Nyxaros just as he exhausted his efforts to enforce his POV. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of that. But where does that get us other than more drama?? WP:ANI is the better place for that discussion-- though I'd suspect it could WP:BOOMERANG after the behavior of other editors are shined under the same spotlight for similar disruptive behavior, however self-righteous it may be.

Total agreement though about the Hindustan Times. Much better sources than that. Good call. 50.238.87.250 (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's be clear. You removed sourced content and restored unsourced content. You kept claiming we need to discuss the matter here while preserving the WP:BURDEN-violating content. This shows that. Here, we need to apply policies and guidelines, especially regarding the lead section, and find reliable sources that report the trends. At minimum, we have the RT critics' consensus covering Murphy's performance and the visuals, and the RT editorial mentions overall praise for the full cast. These are the current data points to work with. We can find more. We don't draw our own conclusions looking at individual reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Erik Yes, let's be clear, but honest too. Disagreeing with you about the semantics of how a lead paragraph should be worded is NOT me removing "sourced content" nor is it me supporting "unsourced content".lol For the record, I agree with the inclusion of "visuals" in the article... but where it belongs, in the critical section. Speaking of "burden", now please show me a strict rule requiring that we must include in the lead the editorialized-summary by 'god-knows-who' from the RottenTomatoes.com website (since we don't get the names of those editors). As a counter-example, we could easily do the same as has been done for the other half of "Barbenheimer" (i.e.Barbie the movie) and simply leave out mention of what exactly is being praised, and the article would be just fine. On the Barbie film page they simply mention "Critical acclaim", and nothing more. And it reads better for it IMAO.

Many other film articles can also be listed that do the same. There is no hard and fast rule for how we must report this information.

I get that "Oppenheimer" is receiving praise for the look or the film, or "visuals", as you prefer. But riddle me this, what happens when several editors have different ideas and preferences for how to word an article? aha. Not so easy, is it? As the other editor has mentioned, when there is a row, we hash it out here on the talkpage and maybe even do an RFC and see what consensus emerges out of that trial by fire.

I was personally okay with using words like "cinematography", "set design", "imagery" or other more direct words-- as I've witnessed other editors having advocated for in its place. But if you must double-down on Rottentomatoes.com as the only WP:RS source in your opinion that we must rely upon, and maybe even the few other sources out there mentioning "visuals" (two of which I discovered in a simple google search are merely parroting Rottentomatoes.com) then I can also call you out for giving WP:UNDUE weight to that source for being (A) little more than an overrated aggregator per MOS:FILMLEAD, and (B) point out that even Rottentomatoes.com does little to explain why it uses the word "visuals" in the first place, where 'many-more-much-better-articles' in its place do a fabulous job analyzing the "cinematography", or "set design", or "imagery". A much finer way of spelling out what the heck "visuals" they are talking about, for a film with essentially one big hyped special effect (i.e. the iconic Trinity bomb explosion).

To be clear, this isn't me "drawing my own conclusions".

To be clear, I agree with your "data points". Yes, mentioning "the visuals" is a must here, as we are already 'mentioning' it elsewhere.

But, to be clear, I most humbly disagree that we must mention it 'again' in the lead in that esoteric way. I think we can do better by the readers and find a more thoughtful way to paraphrase this so it won't read so nebulous, and open the article in the most cogent way possible. 50.238.87.250 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI, the IP removed "visuals" and added "Nolan as director" (an unsourced synthesis) recently. MOS:FILMLEAD says nothing about RT being "an overrated aggregator" or "RT is not a reliable source to summarize critical consensus". The IP doesn't seem to understand the fact that they have to add sources. It is evident that they ignore adding reliable sources for the information they claim for their own purposes and delete/change the information provided by existing reliable sources or call the sources "not a reliable source", "overrated" etc. They commented that they have an account but were on a "work break", and then randomly started to talk about some users "WP:OWN (their) role in any of this drama", "WP:GAME" the articles, and are "pushing a POV" (just like they wrote above) on the related talk page Barbenheimer. As you can also see from IP comments in this section above, according to them, other editors have "disruptive behavior", not them. ภץאคгöร 07:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Disagreeing with you about the semantics of how a lead paragraph should be worded is NOT me removing 'sourced content' nor is it me supporting 'unsourced content'.lol" I get your primary intention, but incidentally you were doing that. At minimum, we could basically remove everything but "critical acclaim" and then figure out what to add back in. You were restoring unverified content repeatedly. It's a different story if the dispute is over how to present verified content or conflicting verified content. In any case, I'd like to get a response from Nyxaros about the "screenplay" bit since it seems only based on the RT editorial listing three reviews (and not writing up a conclusion from them). In addition, we can cast a broad net (e.g., Google for oppenheimer "critics"|"reviews") to try to find reliable sources that have written up overarching assessments, so we can work with more. These sources are the ones that can speak to the overall reception, not us, even if we personally disagree with them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Erik Yo brah. Agree w/your approach, dude.

I poked around at the rt forums to inquire why “visuals” was used. Some pointed out articles and reviews where Nolan wanted “real-world imagery” for everything from set design to locations to the experiments themselves w/little to no cgi. He was mostly successful w/critics in that regard. So I’m told.

Found a couple more legitimate citations and sources on the web summarizing “visuals” w/the phrasing “real-world imagery”. Tempted to give it a go but not until you or others chime in.

My hesitation in relying solely on the descriptor “visuals” is that Nolan is known for big budget spectacles and their practical effects in pictures like “The Dark Knight” and “Interstellar”. Because this film promised a nuclear explosion cinematic simulation, it would be misleading to inadvertently imply this movie is another big effects movie like Nolan’s other films. When tbh, in the voice of the critics, it sounds like he was being applauded for his restraint and minimalism as he chose to tell Oppenheimer’s story with “real-world imagery.” TropicAxe (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Erik: I've added more sources regarding "screenplay" part. Can be found more if needed.

Again, multiple sources explicitly state "visuals". The plural of "visual", which means "a picture, piece of film, or display used to illustrate or accompany something", implying everything shown on screen, the look of the film including practical effects and VFX (e.g. see Giardina, Carolyn (2023-08-23). "No VFX in 'Oppenheimer'? "Clearly Not True" Says Film's Oscar-Winning VFX Supervisor". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2023-09-27.). The term doesn't indicate a CGI fest, and as the sources mention, there is certainly no problem in using it. If there's actually a need, that can be elaborated in the appropriate section(s). Put the elaboration with reliable sources properly cited in the body first, then in the lead if it is appropriate for summarizing and important to the overall page. ภץאคгöร 19:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros Dude, on the receiving end of you feels like a deliberate effort to bludgeon moi into agreeing w/you.

If it’s true what you are saying, and this is the world’s worst violation of the rules and all that is Holy— which is how you make it dramatically sound— then why aren’t you filing a complaint at the appropriate forums? Speaks volumes that you haven’t.

I bring that to your attention because you have already complained to a pair of seasoned moderators on this, who are most definitely aware of your grievances by now, and they seem don’t appear to agree with your stance.

You went as far as trying to solicit a seasoned outsider to join your cause; not sure that’s allowed:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InfiniteNexus&diff=prev&oldid=1177350378

That contributor not only was aware of your grudge but in his reply he also recommended you filter it through the proper channels.

So, way I see it, if several seasoned moderators and registered contributors don’t agree with you by now then it’s likely not the giant rule violation you are making it out to be but, in actuality, it’s just your personal preference versus the preferences of others. A vanilla dispute.

Multiple sources call Avatar 2 a visually acclaimed movie according to critics. Oppenheimer is acclaimed by multiple critics for its mature drama, and Nolan’s restraint with special effects. A religious devotion to practical old school filmmaking and practical techniques. That’s what I’m seeing.

You can escalate this if you truly believe a mutual disagreement rises to the level of a major violation of Wikipedia rules and procedures. But were that to happen, you’ve also made a strong case against yourself for trying to rules-lawyer and bully contributors into having your way. Just reflect upon your constant harsh tone, belittling remarks, trying to rope others into your drama behind the scenes, and arguably a very condescending attitude. It’s exhausting, man. Can’t imagine that abuse of process is kosher w/the dudes that run this show.

Feel free to reach out to me if you do so in but nicer and willing to come halfway. TropicAxe (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to do here. You doubt the information underlined by the sources, try to prolong the discussion by interpreting things in your own way, write multiple syntheses about article and accuse me of all sorts of things. What is your goal? The admins suggested seeking dispute resolution to the IP, while the IPs that edited the page that time seemed to be not from the same location to warrant a page protection. That user didn't write anything about not agreeing with me. And that link clearly shows that I didn't ask anyone to "join my cause", so maybe just stop changing the subject and distorting the facts and actually contribute by citing here the multiple sources you claim to have found, instead of accusing me with fallacy and wandering off topic? Your accusations are noticeably unwarranted. You should try to make your additions to the page correctly and completely, not attack others. You should also learn that there is no need to "consult" you before contributing to the page and correcting a reference because there is no one "deciding" for you. When making changes, you accept that changes will be made by others. ภץאคгöร 22:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros Riiiiight. You had to ask InfiniteNexus out-loud, on his talk page, for everyone to see, if he reported me rather than simply browse his edit history discreetly to see if he filed any complaints. You were not WP:CANVASSING him at all into trying to help you make your WP:POINT, nor were you trying to passive-aggressively suggest to him that he file a report against me AFTER the last two complaints that YOU filed went nowhere. Glad you finally cleared that up. 50.238.87.250 (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

So? Why would I waste my time if there had been an another report? No thanks, I don't do "discreetly". That user pointed out multiple IP edits on the talk page. I didn't "file" anything, my request for semi-page protection was then declined. They actually ignored YOUR report, look at it again here. When you decide to add sources, you should log in to your "account" to edit. ภץאคгöร 23:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros Huh? I was filing a report?!?!? *scratching my head*

Hmmm, gee, I thought I was making a defense for myself against your (false) allegations by bringing them to the attention of others so you couldn't "discreetly" trick an administrator into grouping me in with this banned fellow I don't know.

So, you were NOT being underhanded AND you were NOT hoping he would blindly block this IP too-- i.e. based upon only your word for it, after you "discreetly" reached out to him with a (false) accusation against me WITHOUT notifying me about it?? Wait, that's right... you "don't do discreetly"

Grateful you finally cleared up that misunderstanding too. 50.238.87.250 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Your "defense" as you are calling was not taken into consideration by the two admins. The link shows that the admin "also linked the edit that led to their new block by a CheckUser". So I didn't "notify" the IP who was evading their block, didn't "notify" you because I didn't know if you were gonna be changing your IP or logging into your "account" when I warned you and you accused me of "vandalizing"? It must have slipped my mind not to continue "vandalizing" your talk page to notify you. I guess I'm doing "discreet" business too now... I'm (and other editors on different pages) the problem here as you so try to claim, who is "vandalizing", "disruptive editing", "WP:CANVASSING", "enforcing a POV", "WP:ASPERSIONS" etc. because I add reliably sourced information and remove your syntheses and unsourced additions. Got it. Anyways, I'm not gonna waste more time, the page is protected because of at least two other IPs (see the start of the discussion before further misrepresentation/distortion, the blocked IP and the other one who was suspected of sockpuppetry) and you, and you can't edit. ภץאคгöร 07:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@TropicAxe It would help a lot if you could provide a prototype sentence. Something along the lines of "It received widespread critical acclaim, with praise for Nolan telling his story using "real-world imagery",<insert refs> the screenplay, and cast performances (particularly that of Murphy, Downey, Damon and Blunt)."

Not suggesting you had this in mind but please give us an idea of how you want the lead to read. Then we can tweak your offering and make changes to suit our "preferences" (as you put it) until we have something maybe everyone prefers. 50.238.87.250 (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

tbh, the wording you chose is funky. I have an idea for how to express it w/a compromise in mind @Erik might like too. Fingers crossed, brah. TropicAxe (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Once again, your source addition (the other two is already cited in the article) doesn't mention praise for the limiting phrase "real-world visual imagery". It is removed because of WP:SYNTH (the source does not explicitly state the praise, but you write that "real-world visual imagery", which indicates practical effects, was praised). ภץאคгöร 23:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros not even according to the synth rules I just read that you linked.

Im not synthesizing-watering down anything. An example given of sorts from the policy page that is true “synthesis” would look like this when applying to movies:

• (example)”Star Wars in 1977 was a hit with critics and at the box office, but since its release there have been several badly released Star Wars spin off and sequels making critics and audiences re-evaluate the original movie’s legacy”.

Im elaborating and paraphrasing, not synthesizing-watering down, despite what you say. But you are once again trying to ruleslawyer me into your preference. This is still your preference versus the preference of others. Since I put up my minor contributions days ago and before you are really the only person taking issue w/them.

If rules truly matters to you then I will officially warn you to stop editwarring as it’s called. Unilaterally putting content based on your personal preference into the project page until we can build a consensus. Because the content is in dispute and them are the rules too until a consensus must exist to table said disagreement.

As others have said, if this really represents more than a personal preference to you and it’s some egregious violation for you, then stop taking matters into your hands until we have reached a consensus and take it to an appropriate arbitration forum, as multiple moderators and even your friend infinitenecxis have advised you to do.

I reviewed your contribution history and even in a heated disagreement you were having on the Barbie movie project there’s a moderator imploring you work on your people skills and first make a good faith effort to work it out with those you disagree with, brah. Until that happens I’m done. TropicAxe (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh please. You are still commenting on me personally instead of developing and improving your changes. I'm trying to find a meeting of minds here and improve the page, despite what you wrote about me and your unfounded accusations. Once again, you are making statements that are false and do not reflect the truth. You didn't present it days ago. You have constantly made different comments for days and said that you received such and such information from many sources, but you only added 1 new source that was not already on the page and wrote your own opinion that cannot be found in that source. The user named "infinitenecxis" (?), who is not my "friend", advised me to report on ANI if the IP, which has disappeared for now, continues its actions. By adding multiple sources to the Barbie page, I stopped disruptive IP edits, several IP addresses were blocked and the page was protected. ภץאคгöร 08:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

And since you made the bold edit, do not revert back to your revision until the discussion is closed. ภץאคгöร 09:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros For the benefit of others tuning in, I attempted in good faith to have a debate w/you on the substance on many occasions. But you immediately made it personal— w/your combative tone tone and condescending lectures. Accusing most everyone here who disagreed w/you of major offenses and then a multi-account conspiracy conveniently in the service of your personal tastes and preferences. So you are being willfully misleading.

Pleased to hear you also deplore “making things personal”, and that you are ready to return to a substantive discussion about content, brah. TropicAxe (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I'm the one who started it. Read the discussion and then pay attention to who attacks who first. Here is a hint: "@Nyxaros What’s your deal, dude? Not everything is a conspiracy. [...]. Instead of blaming me, look at yourself in the mirror and learn to write a Wikipedia article. ภץאคгöร 15:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros Also misleading, dude.

That comment from me came long after I nicely tried to work things out w/you on these articles themselves. Having endured one too many of your condescending remarks, sarcasm, and combative tone in your edit summaries and here on the forum, starting as far back as this:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_Equalizer_3&diff=prev&oldid=1174631661

I told you I’m done w/this personal tit for tat you are provoking. Please stay on topic and help us come up with a better opening by way of this consensus building activity. Instead of wrongly accusing me and others of hostility and major rule violations for what amounts to your personal preferences and “reasonable” edits. But I’m moving on, so feel free to have the last word if it makes you feel better, brah. TropicAxe (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

TropicAxe, like I said before, start a separate discussion thread regarding Nyxaros's conduct. Their last comment said nothing personal, and even so, you've continued about the conduct. Bring up the conduct elsewhere, and respond about the content here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Erik To be clear, @TropicAxe was politely responding to you until Nyxaros butted in to lecture him like a child again. Essentially accusing him of improper sourcing, after a previous rat-a-tat-tat string of several harsh cmts and digs.

Nothing is stopping you from still responding to @TropicAxe's suggestion of an alternate phrase to "visuals". None of this would be so convoluted in the first place if Nyxaros would honestly stay on topic and followed the advice of others insofar as his allegations go and take them to the Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboards. Rather than dumping his complaints here, WP: BAITING others into feeling the need to defend themselves. A hostile environment is often the consequence of failing to WP:AGF. Food for thought. 50.238.87.250 (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Noted. No comment. I'll respond to the lead-section wording elements tomorrow. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Erik: Will you respond so that a step can be taken towards closing this discussion (no one else has bothered to do so for days, and can you blame them)? Otherwise, as can be seen on the page right now and above, these disruptive edits and fudges may continue. ภץאคгöร 17:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros Except that Erik is no more an administrator than you are, so neither of you can simply "move to close this debate" or decide on its merits without the rest of us consenting. Even though you are framing this very narrowly, the truth is that nothing is stopping you from having good faith and "taking a step" by yourself" toward advancing this discussion WITHOUT WP:CANVASSING Erik into basically enabling your false accusations (i.e. that the debate here is about "disruptive edits" and "fudges"). Someone who is an actual administrator explained to you that the contested material and subsequent edits are not "disruptive" but are in fact "reasonable" in nature after you brought this same complaint to their attention.

So, again, rather than you sticking to the tactic of you trying to WP:BLUDGEON us (who disagree with you) into accepting your 'WP:POINT of view here, how about trying more WP:CIVIL remedies, like an RFC or other ways to build a consensus (i.e.for what works best for the lead)?

You are implying that if no one has bothered to revert the article to your liking, then "it MUST be because of all the disruptive editing going on."(to paraphrase you) Or, maybe it is because it isn't the big fuss you are making it out to be, or even, maybe others are fine with the lead as it is. Your accusations of "disruptive editing" and "fudges" do not belong here, they belong at WP:ANI. Otherwise you are simply edit-warring here. 50.238.87.250 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

Wanted to reword the second paragraph under the Production Category. After that "Robert Pattinson gave the director a book of Oppenheimer's speeches." and this inspired him to further cross paths with American Prometheus, giving a nod to how the speeches provided by Robert Pattinson ignited a flame for Nolan.

cited from https://www.looper.com/1341954/oppenheimer-what-inspired-christopher-nolan-film-how-robert-pattinson-help/ AlanL19 (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I do not understand what language you want to add, nor do I understand where you want to add it. Pinchme123 (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Error in the plot section

Nothing major, but I noticed in the plot the surname of Blackett is spelled incorrectly as Blackeet in the third row. 82.84.2.195 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Paramount has the International film rights to Oppenheimer.

Paramount Pictures has the film rights outside North America, Universal Pictures handles rights in North America, Because Universal handle the international rights to the Barbie movie. 23.245.47.124 (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

And also Warner Bros. Has the North American film rights to the Barbie movie. 23.245.47.124 (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Edits which do not conform to WP:NOR, WP:V, or WP:NOT by User:Lantye

User:Lantye posted this on my talk page: On the Oppenheimer article, why didn’t you just click on William Jacob Knox, Jr. page. I even gave a .gov source to the point of Knox, Jr. omission. You removed my addition without giving a valid reason. I produced a valid source that you did not fact check in addition you could just click on his article on the hyperlink I tagged Lantye (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as a clear violation of core policy WP:NOR (no original research) because nothing in the cited source says that the film Oppenheimer fails to mention or portray William Jacob Knox Jr. That Web page does not even mention the film at all.

It is a violation of WP:NOR to use Wikipedia as a first publisher of original research to claim that the film fails to mention or portray a person. You need to find and cite a reliable source in compliance with WP:RS that actually says that the film Oppenheimer fails to mention or portray Knox. Yes, WP:NOR can be very frustrating, but it has broad support from the WP community. Please keep in mind that the editor attempting to disrupt the consensus version of an article always has the burden of finding citations to support their edits and otherwise showing that they conform to WP policies.

And it is a violation of WP:V (verifiability) to cite a source for an assertion that is not actually made therein. Please review WP core policies and conform your edits accordingly.

Your assertions about Knox's contributions to the Manhattan Project are properly sourced to that NPS Web page, and you should feel free to add those assertions to the article on the Manhattan Project if they are not there already. But they cannot be in this article, because this is an article about the film, not the Manhattan Project. See WP:NOT (specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information).

To be clear, an Wikipedia article about a film is about the film that the director, producer, and screenwriter actually chose to make. So MOS:FILMPLOT doesn't require citations, for example, to support every statement in the summary of the film's plot because the film itself serves as the source. But any statement about what the director, producer, or screenwriter failed to make, what they chose to omit from the film, is original research and needs to be supported by a citation to a reliable source that actually says that. ---Coolcaesar (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2023

Look at paragraph 'Censorship' at says 'Hinduvta' instead of 'Hindutva'. OosmanBeekawoo (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes average rating

In the article, it's mentioned as 8.6/10, but I am unable to find average rating on RT. Can someone mention where I can verify this info? Coderzombie (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

never mind, found it. Coderzombie (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"Attributed to multiple references"

The statement that the film received critical acclaim is "attributed to multiple references", according to a footnote. This strikes me as an odd construct.

As far as I understand, factual statements are supported by sources. A reference points to a source. What exactly is meant by "attributed to a reference"? Who is doing the attribution and what is being attributed to what?

Secondly, are all those sources really needed? Consider WP:OVERCITE.

I've found this construct at a few other places, but exclusively when it comes to the critical reception and analysis of movies, and it seems to have started just last year. See e.g. Saving Private Ryan, Barbie. What is going on (and where's the best place for discussing it)? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 10:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC) —St.Nerol (talk

Excessive citations

I removed the excessive citations and unnecessary note. The three remaining sources are sufficient for the use of critical acclaim. Sometimes evaluative statements like this are overcited to prevent drive-by challenging, but no one in good faith would be demanding more citations to confirm that this obviously critically praised and awarded film was acclaimed. Lapadite (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps I'll raise the general question over at The Dark Knight, where this thing is all over. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 13:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. What may suit one type of film, like an old or obscure film with little to no online sources or few high-quality print sources available, might not suit others. You can start a discussion for film articles at WT:FILM. . Lapadite (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-reverted. Three references are absolutely not sufficient. Please see MOS:ACCLAIMED and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sufficient to you? Three sources constitutes "multiple", but I added a fourth. WP:EXCEPTIONAL says nothing about critically acclaimed being an exceptional claim requiring a dozen citations; it in fact states that it refers to: "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended; Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people." None of which apply to this.

As as I said above, no one could in good faith dispute that this is a critically acclaimed film given that both review aggregators and countless reliable sources have stated that the film is critically praised, and multiple citations are provided. Restoring a redundant citation bomb for an unquestionably, widely-supported statement for no reason other than wanting a dozen citations is pointless wikilawyering; A dozen citations for this statement is not encouraged by WP policy and does not serve readers or improve the article. Lapadite (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Not "to me"; this is the consensus of the film project. The purpose of bundling citations is to avoid citation overkill; and WP:CITEKILL is an essay. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I am aware it is an essay (status quo is also an essay), and adding a dozen citations to this when multiple sources are already cited is not consensus of the film project. WP:EXCEPTIONAL is policy, and it does not encourage adding a dozen redundant citations to the mainstream-supported phrase critical acclaim, which has multiple citations in the article. Critically acclaimed is already supported by multiple citations, thus satisfying the language in the MOS. The issue you're perpetuating here, which is not article improvement, is merely adding the arbitrary number of six extra citations to the four existing citations, which is not stated by policies and guidelines and is a matter of editorial judgement. Lapadite (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So then on what grounds would we remove the additional citations? Citation overkill is already addressed by cite bundling, and MOS:ACCLAIMED is comfortably satisfied. There's nothing wrong with having more sources than the bare minimum. It also seems that you are unaware of how EXCEPTIONAL is typically applied; pull up any controversial person's article, and you will find that contentious claims are often tagged with ~10 sources. Not saying it's a requirement, but it's a good number and there's nothing wrong with that. And please don't try to WP:WIKILAWYER using the "multiple = more than one" argument; there have been discussions in the past to close this loophole, but they have not been successful only because editors believe that would only lead to more problems. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:ACCLAIMED is comfortably satisfied with four citations, which is multiple; multiple means more than three. You're misusing the policy of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. As you yourself indicated here, WP:EXCEPTIONAL primarily pertains to "controversial" content, conflict of interest content, and content that is suspected to be a minority or polarizing viewpoint. This is none of that. This is a commonly-used evaluative statement that is widely-supported by a plethora of mainstream sources, and multiple of them are already cited. More input from WT:FILM and MOSFILM on the usage of an arbitrary number of citations would be helpful in general. MOS:ACCLAIMED does not specify an amount of citations, so I don't know why you're strictly clamoring for 11 citations or claiming there's a consensus on this, and seem uninterested in a compromise. I am in favor of up to five or six, not 11. @St.nerol: As you initially disputed the excessive citations, are you in favor of any greater or lesser number? Lapadite (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It may not be political, but it is definitely contentious. I don't know if you are aware of the larger context behind this, but the film project has long faced the problem of editors labeling every film they like as "critically acclaimed" or "one of the greatest [genre] films of all time", and every film they dislike as "a box-office bomb". EXCEPTIONAL also applies to words like "widely" and "unprecedented", which are not necessarily controversial but eyebrow-raising.

Yes, five or six would be sufficient, but having 11 doesn't hurt, so we shouldn't be removing them. It's not CITEKILL, it doesn't violate any PAGs, and it's not excessive. As I noted above, have you looked at any articles with cite bundles for contentious/exceptional statements? 11 refs is by no means uncommon or overkill. Examples: after "far-right" and "conspiracy theorist" in Marjorie Taylor Greene; after "greatest film ever made" in Citizen Kane; after "antisemitic conspiracy theory" in Holocaust denial; after "overturn the election" in Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election; etc.

There is no number specified in MOS:ACCLAIMED or WP:EXCEPTIONAL because (1) there is no consensus for how many sources qualify as "multiple", although two or three is definitely not what it means; and (2) that would be WP:CREEP, impossible to enforce and difficult to adhere to. Perhaps a range of an acceptable number of refs ought to be added (I'm thinking 5–15), but that would be a discussion for another day. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lapadite: To me, three references seems enough, and anything more than four seems excessive. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 10:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

See WT:FILM#"Attributed to multiple references". InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Challenging edits to Plot section on 11 January 2024 that introduced multiple errors

I'm challenging this edit on 11 January 2024 by User:Dcdiehardfan that introduced about a dozen obvious errors into the Plot section. There are probably more but I lost count after a dozen.

For example, most high school graduates are aware that "testimony" is traditionally used as a mass noun, meaning that it is uninflected regardless of number. Bryan Garner, the editor of Black's Law Dictionary, favors the traditional position on this.

The aggregation of the existing paragraphs into extremely long paragraphs makes the Plot section hard to read and is highly inappropriate because this is not a dissertation or an academic book on the oeuvre of Christopher Nolan. The previous paragraph length was the correct length for essay-length material in formal written English, especially material prepared for a lay audience.

Any objections before I revert the Plot section back to the last good version? Coolcaesar (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar First I'd like to thank and appreciate you for discussing it in an amicable manner rather than going forward. Yea, looking back, I do agree that my bold good faith edits do suffer from the core qualities of bad structuring and improper grammar for "testimonies". I fully support the revert and I'll be more careful in terms of editing prose and grammar in the future. Thank you for raising the issues. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar Just to notify you, I have already went ahead and restored the previous version of the plot with only a few minor grammatical changes at the end to make it a bit more concise and for improved flow in this edit [13] assuming the link provided is correct and still available. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

about Chien-Shiung Wu and other females missing, cricism

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/08/10/oppenheimer-manhattan-project-women-scientists-bomb/ 151.95.180.105 (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)