Talk:The Devil All the Time (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

About the Plot "bloat" and culling to MoS 700 word limit

@Binksternet Bink, I rolled back your edit of the plot so that it would satisfy the Manual of Style 700 word limit on the plot section.

@Cullen328t Cullen328, I see that you reverted my revert saying that Bink's version is preferable because "that summary is way too long".

I understand MoS, but that is guidance. The Mos also provides the following guidance:

The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.

I submit that "The Devil All the Time" falls into this criteria.

My version of the plot does not violate the MoS's guidance as it contains none of the following "avoids":

The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail.

The plot section as it stands with Cullen328's revert does not reflect the actual plot of the movie.

It neglects to introduce key characters like the serial killers Carl and Sandy until they try to murder Arvin.

It leaves out important plot points: The reason for Roy Laferty's murder of his wife. The cause of Willard Russell's disturbing set of religious convictions which drives the plot. Why Arvin returned to the old family home after dispatching Reverend Preston Teagardin. How Sheriff Lee Bodecker is involved with his perfidy.

Also, some of the abbreviated plot is incorrect. Bink, it makes me wonder whether actually viewed the movie.

OK, my plot "summary" is more than 700 words, but the reverted plot summary is inadequate.

To cite 700 words as the limit and a hard and fast rule is not a good reason to revert a comprehensive plot to a defective plot.

I will not revert, but I do want the plot to reflect the film as it contains a powerful message with significant motifs and leitmotifs that deserve to be noted.

Rather than to get involved in an edit war, editors are supposed to "discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range". Doing reverts doesn't reflect good faith editing.

Editors engaged in a dispute should try to reach a consensus about the appropriate approach.

Osomite ^hablemos 20:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reduce lots of film plot articles without having seen the film. I don't think it's necessary, using the method where I roll the article back to a point when it was not in violation of the 700-word limit, or if I roll it back to 750, for example, and trim 50 words by just pruning a few things. The reason is that Wikipedia is not here to exactly represent the plot. There is no need to put every detail in the plot section, with every tiny bit of accuracy. All we need are the major plot points to get a general idea. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly in favor of sticking to the MOS guideline, and it is simply unnecessary to describe every plot point. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet You say "I reduce lots of film plot articles without having seen the film". I take it from this statement that you have not seen this film. I am amazed at the arrogance of that statement. You don't have first-hand knowledge but you believe that you had the necessary insight to decide what part of a too-long plot stays and what part goes. Your a priori method lacks credibility. The result of your uninformed effort created a plot that neither honestly nor accurately reflects the movie. Your work product has been subject to quite a bit of effort to correct the errors of your substandard effort.

How can you justify this substandard quality of editing?

I proposed that we seek to reach a consensus. You are ignoring my request. Do I need to pursue resolution elsewhere?

Osomite ^hablemos 08:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328t Seriously? You cite the Manual of Style as support for @Binksternet's edit. Did you read through my discussion above? Or are you just rubber-stamping again without looking at any content or context?

OK, I see that MoS guidance says 700 words. Is that the only criteria you set on the edit? Did you examine the changes made? Do you have any actual judgment of the quality involved? Binksternet's edit was a hack job. Do you care? I worked on the plot, didn't realize the word limit (which may not necessarily apply visa via the "Pulp Fiction" criteria), and creating a plot that honestly reflected the film. Your criticism of my effort to "not describe every plot point" falls short of the mark. On this point, what is the judgment about what plot points qualify for inclusion and those that do not? What rule can you cite for this?

So Binksternet dashes in and out, does a quick edit, just one of the more than several hundred he did on Sept 21. His questionable work product gets the benefit of the doubt and your supporting "approval" (by a rule) and my work product is discarded (by rule).

I question your method. By citing rules, you are taking the easy way out. Explain your actual role in this. How did you decide the need to get involved?

Please address my concerns. Please don't cite the MoS 700 word rule again.

Osomite ^hablemos 08:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're angry, I can see that. But it doesn't change longstanding WikiProject Film consensus. The guideline is there for a reason. You would need to show extraordinary conditions for you to exceed 700 words, and the rest of the article would have to be very well developed, which it isn't. The only time a large plot is considered is if the large plot will not overbalance the other sections. Guess which section is the largest right now? The plot section, even with its reduced size. So there's very little chance that you will get film project regulars to agree that this one film should be among the few exceptions in plot size. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Binksternet's comment above, and I suggest that you work on expanding the rest of the article instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Osomite, if I may, I suggest taking the long view here, as someone who doesn't bother editing plot summaries. Whatever any one person writes, particularly for a new film, is highly likely to be overwritten in the course of time, even if the write-ups are within the word count. So it's possible that in a month or in a year, your version will be replaced by someone else's, and their version will be replaced by someone else's. Maybe plot summaries for older films can stick around for years, but it's not likely for this one. Instead, the content that tends to stay is content contributed to other sections. That's the lasting value. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik Thank you for your wise counsel. I greatly appreciate it.

Osomite ^hablemos 23:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bink, thanks for replying. I understand this situation. Case closed, I'll move on.

@Cullen328t, thanks for replying. I understand this situation. Case closed, l'll move on.

In penance for my sins, I have rewritten the plot into a tight terse narrative of 665 words. It tells the film's story accurately enough so that a reader will see the story sort of (adequate for Wikipedian purposes). I left out anything that could be left out (it was a lot) although sorely tempted to include some explanatory detail.

So now others will edit. I wonder what enhancements or detractions it will bring.

Wikipedia editing, a blessing and a curse. Oh well, may we live in interesting times.

Osomite ^hablemos 23:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hippie who picks up Arvin at the end.

The hippie who picks up arvin in the end is not Charles manson but just a hippie because in the book or in the movie it is mentioned nowhere. Raymondjohn1234 (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arvin's childhood home

The last paragraph but one of the plot begins "Arvin goes to Meade to visit his childhood home." In the first paragraph of the plot, however, it is indicated that Willard and Charlotte moved from Meade to Knockemstiff where Arvin was born. So Knockemstiff is Arvin's childhood home, not Meade. Further, the prayer log and Willard's rustic cross where Arvin and Lee confront each other are in the Woods of Knockemstiff, not Meade. 62.96.226.66 (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]