Talk:No Country for Old Men

Carla Jean "reminding" Chigurh

Regarding the scene were Carla Jean is offered to call the coin toss for her life: I changed the following from "She refuses to play, instead reminding him that the choice is his alone." to "She refuses to play, insisting that the choice is his alone." This was reverted by Ring Cinema with the comment "I believe Chigurh knows the choice is his alone".

What is the basis for this belief? For Carla to be "reminding" Chigurh would imply that he's forgotten something, instead of just having a different point of view. Chigurh is portrayed throughout the film as an odd character with peculiar beliefs. Wells calls him a man of principles. In his response to Carla, Chigurh does not agree with Carla's argument. What is the positive evidence from the film to the contrary, keeping in mind "Neutral point of view" and "Verifiability"?

216.195.28.24 (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's self-evident that Chigurh knows that it's his choice. 'Remind' doesn't only mean 'help to remember', it also means 'put in mind of' especially to help someone avoid a mistake. I think it's the correct word, especially given the context of Carla Jean's words. Thanks for the thoughts, anonymous editor. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that Chigurh believes as you think, and I have provided contrary evidence. As for the definition you are using, it's a loaded term. It's like a prosecutor saying "let me remind the witness he is under oath", implying the witness is lying. 216.195.28.24 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The definitions I'm using are standard, not obscure. I don't feel like Wikipedia should limit itself to an abridged dictionary. I also don't think there's anything magical about the current verbiage. I think it's more neutral, since it does not introduce anything that is not obvious. I'm not sure what evidence is contrary to this view, since I think there's agreement that Chigurh chooses, whether that choice = following a principle or not following a principle. If the argument is that 'remind' implies that Chigurh agrees with Carla Jean, I would mention that it's not the case that everyone reminded of X agrees that X is also true. Thanks for the interest in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say your definition was obscure, I said it was loaded. The word is being used as a rhetorical trick, for example: "The Christian reminded the atheist that Jesus died for his sins." This has a completely different connotation than "The Christian insisted that Jesus died for his sins."

And no, within the context of the movie, it is not obvious Chigurh chooses. Chigurh just has a completely different philosophy on the matter, and we, the viewers, are invited to entertain it.

216.195.28.24 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Carla Jean is doing the reminding, right? Let's not overlook that the remindee does not have to accept the views of the reminder. So there's plenty of room for a different philosophy if that's what you want. Not only that, it seems to overstate the matter to say she "insists" on anything. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring my point about the biased connotation. A debater cannot "remind" another debater about a point under dispute. It's a biased, rhetorical device, and in this case shows that the commentator is taking sides. As for "insists" overstating, this girl is arguing for her life. 216.195.28.24 (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I find this to be a fairly minor point but I do agree that "insisting" is less controversial than "reminding". "Insisting" carries absolutely no additional connotations whereas "reminding" can. It certainly is plausible for a reader to see "reminding" and try to find a previous instance to which this refers, such an instance, of course, being non-existent. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a minor point, it's true. The idea that "insisting" carries no connotations is false, though. Not only that, it's not what happens in the movie. I would be prepared to give up on 'remind' if it could be enunciated what idea Carla Jean presents to Chigurh that she thinks he would not have heard before. In that case, she's not reminding him, she's presenting him with new material that she would not have believed is a reminder. However, the facts are different: she is actually appealing to what she thinks is his previous decision to keep the promise he made to her husband; he can keep the promise or not, she thinks. Again, what matters is her belief that he decided something. Acting on that belief, she reminds him that the choice is his alone. If she doesn't have that belief, why is she mentioning it? It doesn't come up randomly, after all. Whether he receives it as a reminder in either sense is beside the point to describing the action of the movie correctly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

About "insisting", note Big Bird said it carries no additional connotations. It's a straightforward use of the word. Considering how she rejects his command to "Call it" twice, giving up a 50% chance to live, I don't see how you can argue that "insisting" is overstating the case. Now compare that with the contortions you're going through to defend "remind". I'll note that you've shifted from your original argument "I believe Chigurh knows the choice is his alone". Now you are saying she is "reminding" him about what they were talking about in the past minute.

The "new material" in question is the coin. Also, for her to state her belief twice is in favor of the word "insist". 216.195.28.24 (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not buying it. Big Bird's views on "insisting" are incorrect. You should be as critical of your own idea as you are of others. Your take about the coin is too vague and unformed to comment on.

Again, to show that she's not "reminding" you have to explain this: what does Carla Jean present to Chigurh that she believes is not a reminder of an earlier state of mind when Chigurh knew it was his choice alone? I'd rather not dumb down the summary any further than is necessary and I really haven't heard anything that contradicts the view that Carla Jean believes she's reminding Chigurh that it's his choice alone. In other words, she wants to put in front of his mind that he chooses. I am consonant with the view that Chigurh's thinking is different, but that doesn't prevent her from reminding. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's incorrect to state that "reminding" is the null hypothesis and that this needs to be proven incorrect before an alternate hypothesis is introduced. I also think that it's incorrect to state that insisting is "not what happens in the movie" because the above arguments about reminding seem to be based on our knowledge of what beliefs Carla Jean and Chigurh held of each other and this is not directly presented on screen. I'll admit that it's plausible for "remind" to be correct but "insist" is a lower denominator that doesn't stray in its meaning and, realistically, it shouldn't be seen as incorrect. Could we agree on a altogether different solution if neither of these two suffice? Something like:

• She refuses to play, instead stating that the choice is his alone.
• She refuses to play and says that the choice is his alone.
• She refuses to play, instead leaving the choice up to him. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The crux of the problem is that your use of remind is a rhetorical trick. It tries to lend an air of fact about a debatable point. It's akin to using weasel words. Here's a condensed version of the dialog in question:

A. Carla Jean: You don't have to do this.

B. Chigurh: <tosses coin> This is the best I can do. Call it.

C. Carla Jean: The coin don't have no say. It's just you.

You're summary reads as "She refuses to play, instead reminding him A." That's just a completely biased summary.

As for "insists", I reject that it is "incorrect", though there are two definitions and I'm using the first http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/insist: 1. To be firm in a demand or course; refuse to yield: insisted on giving me a second helping. 2. To assert or demand (something) vehemently and persistently: We insist that you accept these gifts. That said, I'm not wed to insists and would accept either of the first two of Big Bird's alternatives.

216.195.28.24 (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ask the anonymous editor to refrain from characterizing my editing as "trickery." It's worse than wrong. Big Bird: Null Hypothesis. I'm not putting forward The null hypothesis as much as some staring place on My null hypothesis; I'm simply stating honestly what would cause me to abandon my view, since there's no point discussing if we're not willing to change our minds. Not sure I'm seeing the same willingness elsewhere and I'm going to put that forward as the strength of my position. Insisting. Is 'insist' a lower denominator of 'remind'? I'm not sure, but I hope there's agreement that, since there's little enough that we can say, we should say what can be said. Is the above discussion evidence that Carla Jean "insists"? I'm afraid I don't see the connection quite the same as you, Big Bird. Someone is insisting on her behalf but it seems that 'insist' could be wrong, i.e. can we honestly say she makes a firm demand? Despite what you say above, we don't have to enter into Chigurh's mind to understand if she's 'reminding'. We merely have to note that she believes something like this: "Chigurh knows he doesn't have to keep his word or let a coin flip decide because it's up to him what he does." I think that's an uncontroversial summary of her state of mind. I hope you find it reasonably persuasive. Many thanks for your interest in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't agree that the summary of her state of mind as described is uncontroversial. I believe that insisting is a lower denominator, yes, but I'm willing to concede that not everyone will see it that way. That's the reason why I offered the alternate solutions if "reminds" and "insists" seem to be too suggestive of something that's not blatantly obvious. What do you think about the options I presented above? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to dumb it down. Which part is controversial? She explicitly says it's not up to the coin, so that part is right. So then how is it possible that she is not referring to Chigurh's decision to follow the path he started on when he offered her husband the chance to save her life? That's expressly what she's responding to. What else could Carla Jean be thinking? I'm trying to find a copy of the text online to reference. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know what she was thinking and it's really not within the guidelines contained in WP:FILMPLOT ("Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source") for us to make such a statement. I would qualify as analytic, interpretive and evaluative the explanation that she reminds him of something of which they are both mentally aware but which remains unspoken. Do you think we can find a common ground if neither side agrees to "remind" or "insist"? Could you maybe offer another suggestion? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Summary of the discussion, please? Is there not a way to write the particular scene on a higher level to avoid specifics of the exchange? Erik (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As of this version, the plot section describes the exchange between Carla Jean and Chigurh as (contentious wording italicized) "She refuses to play, instead reminding him that the choice is his alone." This was changed to "She refuses to play, insisting that the choice is his alone." This change was reverted and a discussion ensued about the merits of each of those wording choices being based on what was actually presented on screen versus the alternate wording being based on something being implied.

The above is the summary. My opinion is that it is possible to rewrite it as Erik suggests hence my request for further input for suggestions of how to achieve this. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral as possible, I say-- she "insisting" it's his decision is OK. "Replying" or something on that order might be better. "Reminding" is inappropriate-- It implies Chigurh knew it was his choice earlier, an awareness on Chigurh's part of which, as far as I recall, we have no evidence. Dekkappai (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this topic is extremely trivial. There are much bigger problems on Wikipedia. That said, the real problem is that both versions emphasize unimportant dialog rather than action. What's really important is that she forces him to decide. The text should say something like "insisting that he make the choice himself" or "forcing him to make the choice himself". It could also say nothing at all, since that's pretty much implied by "she refuses to play". If you're trying to emphasize specifically what she says, I wouldn't waste the reader's time with it. Unless it has some effect on the action independent of her refusal, it's just dramatic dialog. —Codrdan (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. Too much detail, and bordering on interpretation-- just scrap it. Dekkappai (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So the agreement is that the sentence states "She refuses to play" or "She refuses to choose" and end the sentence there? If that's the case, I'm in agreement with that solution as well. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Could it be as simple as, "Carla Jean comes home, where Chigurh confronts her about Moss's money. Chigurh leaves the house alone" or a similar variation? Erik (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That configuration might be a bit too simplified but I think you're on the right track. How about merging the sentence in question with the preceding sentence (also simplified) to state "He offers her a coin toss for her life and she refuses to play." Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think why she refuses is important. This whole scene is about a life and death philosphical debate about choice between the two characters. It is NOT about action. 216.195.28.24 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The plot summary is only supposed to be a basic description of the film. We can argue thematic importance to all scenes in the film. If the summary cannot have this level of detail without this kind of debating, then perhaps we should make it even smaller and less disputable -- say, around 200-300 words? Erik (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not supposed to be summarizing philosophical debates without secondary sources. The film is a primary source and it's used in the plot section only as such. Per WP:PSTS, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The consensus seems to be that "reminding" is too interpretive per this definition but it doesn't necessarily stop there. The further we can get from any interpretation of what was presented on screen the better. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to make judgments about what to include in the plot. At some point if you cut out too much you aren't representing the film. Personally, I don't see any support for "remind" outside of Ring Cinema, so I think going with Big Bird's first alternative of "She refuses to play, instead stating that the choice is his alone." is the best choice. I don't get "insist", and Ring Cinema doesn't get "remind", but the nature of the scene is left intact. 216.195.28.24 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it IS about action: His accident seems to be caused by his conscience finally distracting him. I would say "He offers to let her live if she correctly calls a toss of a coin, but she refuses" and then maybe " as a matter of principal." or ", forcing him to take full responsibility for her death." The details of the dialog are unimportant though. —Codrdan (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there's a YouTube video of the scene in question for those who want a refresher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZT29UP_3o8 216.195.28.24 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I like Big Bird's solution above. I agree with 216.195.28.24 that the philosophy behind the scene, and the entire film in fact, is important. However, discussion of that belongs in a section on interpretation, not a plot description. And the interpretation needs to be from reliable film scholars, critics, etc. not from us. If the dialogue comes up in a discussion of interpretation later on, fine. [post ce]-- Yes, personally I like very short, bare-bones synopses, (except for films that are either very difficult to find, or totally lost.) Dekkappai (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors coming in late was very unhelpful. Someone actually asked for a summary, which is kind of funny except that it drives the quality straight to the dregs. If you don't have the patience for careful thinking, don't want to do the reading, admit that to yourself and leave that to those of us who do. I don't believe we're working on deadline. Thanks Big Bird, I appreciated the give and take. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because editors were not here at the start of the discussion doesn't mean that their feedback isn't helpful. Nobody's closing up this discussion right away, and the article can be further improved with more eyes on it. Its seems to me that the alternatives proposed by Big Bird seem to sum up the sequence well enough, allowing readers to follow the details. Any analysis or interpretation on the events in the final scene should be covered outside the plot section within its own section. Has anyone found any reviews or journal articles that cover this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Big Bird's ideas were welcome. He took the time to get up to speed before he offered his thoughts. Superficial discussions yield a superficial product. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, a lot of editors' time was wasted unnecessarily because of one editor's stubborn and arrogant stupidity. That this editor now insults the input from others which forced him to budge seems to be no surprise to anyone. Dekkappai (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if editors came to this discussion, they are interested in improving it, and are entitled to agree with those that offered alternatives. I read the entire discussion, have seen the film, and read the plot summary, so I think that I can (and others) join the discussion to determine the best alternative. Instead of focusing on the editors, let's focus on the content of the article, so that this discussion doesn't need to stretch on. Since you have contributed to this page quite a bit, I'm asking if you have come across any helpful sources that could be used in expanding an analysis/interpretations section? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to imply that I focused on the editors instead of the article, but I actually was calling for focus on the content as you just did. So thanks for agreeing with me, even though you didn't know it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As the original editor who started this discussion, I note that Ring Cinema changed the article to an agreed alternative, and as such I am satisfied with the outcome. I do think the one editor who asked for a summary instead of reading the discussion shows a lack of consideration, but I also think the late editor opinions did add value. My confidence in the Wikipedia process, however messy it may be, is re-affirmed. 216.195.28.24 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see more evidence here on one entrenched editor ('Ring Cinema') dismissing and insulting others. Why has this been allowed to go on for so long? 98.92.184.205 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not fair. I am completely open to improvements. Of course I have paid a lot of attention to this article the last couple years. I know the many disputes that have arisen. But I am totally open to changes that improve the article and my record bears this out.

Reception

No Country for Old Men received universal acclaim...(95%) critics gave the film a positive review...91%...etc

somebody needs to look up the word 'universal'67.171.186.12 (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree - and it appears to be you. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

i could be missing the joke, but it's inaccurate to say that it was universally acclaimed when it wasn't; various critics disliked it, reviewed it negatively, etc, as indicated by the sources cited. 67.171.186.12 (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"No Country for Old Men received few negative reviews."

that has a wrong complexion. the word "negative" should not figure into describing a reception which was overwhelmingly positive. with those unusually high numbers (95%, 91%), you can (just) plausibly say "No Country for Old Men received near-universal acclaim...". at a minimum it should say "...received mostly positive reviews". 67.171.186.12 (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly good English and expresses the main idea accurately without resort to peacock language or inaccuracies. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

the main idea (that its reception was mostly positive) is more accurately expressed by wording that articulates that its reception was mostly positive.67.171.186.12 (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. Mostly is only 51%. There are any number of ways to express ideas in English and nothing is gained by eliminating some for no reason. So far, this form is the smallest problem. It is neutral and factual, which is what we want there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

the issue is best use of language. from the current wording, that n.c.f.o.m. received mostly positive reviews can be gathered only by inference; the mind is required to reverse-reason. the thought process on reading it is: "n.c.f.o.m. received few negative reviews... - oh, so it received mostly positive reviews", etc. better to directly say that it received mostly positive reviews and eliminate the necessity of the backward mental step.67.171.186.12 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The inverse of 'few' is not 'mostly'. Mostly is only 51%, but its reception was better than that. I am sure it is widely understood that saying there are few X's means that X's are not large in number. (My search found no counterexamples.) Given the degree of good reception here -- many movies have better, for whatever reason -- I think ordinary English is fine and that's what we should use. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

as of now, it reads "...received very positive reviews." if you made that change, i'm confused; i thought you liked "received few negative reviews". there must be somebody else looking at this. but the current wording connotes that it received generally positive reviews, and that's accurate. 67.171.186.12 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

you're back: "No Country for Old Men received few negative reviews."

the issue is best use of language. from that wording, that n.c.f.o.m. received almost all positive reviews can be gathered only by inference; the mind is required to reverse-reason. the thought process on reading it is: "n.c.f.o.m. received few negative reviews... - oh, so it received almost all positive reviews", etc. better to directly say that it received almost all positive reviews and eliminate the necessity of the backward mental step. 24.20.121.172 (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

^^I agree to the fullest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.64.37 (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is accurate and avoids the other problems we had in that section. There are many examples of this construction, so it is not hard to understand. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

it is harder to understand than a direct, equally neutral statement that it received mostly positive reviews. 24.20.121.172 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it did better than that. It was more than a majority and the negatives were few in number. I don't think it's at all hard to understand, either. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand the different points being made above. And I also see disagreement about style, which is subjective, not so much about proper English. "Mostly" is a vague term and can mean more than 51%, all the way up to 99% (or to put a fine point on it, it could be 100% minus one) but "universal" (which is what the article says now) means 100% which is technically incorrect but probably not worth fighting about. I also do not like the construction "few negative" but I do like the "nearly universal" suggestion. More importantly, though, I think User:RC you need to cut out the patronizing jabs and focus on being collaborative. I've read other threads above and, while I can see that perhaps you don't realize the effect your particular style of disagreement has on others, it comes off as terribly nitpicky and off-putting. Obviously you have contributed to making this a good article. But I suggest you review WP:Civility e.g. "Other people can misread your passion as aggression. Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are 'superior'; nobody likes a bully." As someone else said, we are all here to improve the article. El duderino (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: nearly 2 weeks later and he's still condescending to other editors while refusing to collaborate. Maybe time for an RfC. 98.92.184.205 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

nearly universal

I like this phrasing as suggested by an IP editor above and used at other articles for top films. I think "few negative" is nearly a double negative and too close to "a few negative" -- and more importantly, as another editor said in recent edit summary, why ponder the negatives when it received overwhelmingly positive reviews? Yes, "few negative" is correct English -- no one's arguing that so please stop repeating it -- but it is somewhat awkward in this context and I've never seen it used in another film article, so it is not the best choice for an encyclopedic summary style. And by the way, the recent back and forth argument in edit summaries [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] should be hashed out here instead. El duderino (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. There is nothing awkward about a perfectly ordinary English sentence. 5% dissenters is actually very substantial. If you'd like, do as I did and look at where that ranks it among all films that year. Many films do better. I think Star and I are both comfortable with it as it is and this way is completely accurate, excellent English construction, and completely comprehensible. I appreciate you trying, though. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

'No thanks'? Please don't condescend to other editors. In addition to issues of WP:civility you appear to be trying to WP:Own the article. Please stop the edit warring -- this [6] is your 3rd revert in 6 hours. I believe that User:StarofAmman was trying to compromise with you, since his first change [7] in the above-mentioned warring was against your "few negative" insistence. I'm not sure exactly why you're clinging to the awkward & misleading construction, but you're the only one arguing for it and yes we consider the IP editors' comments. El duderino (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Star and I have already agreed to "very few," So I think for the moment, I would rather discuss it with you here. Did you look at the RT site to see what I said? This film is 26th in just the year of its release. And 5% is a significant dissent. Would you say living outside the US is "almost universal" for the world's population? Of course not! 5% of the world lives in the US. So the critical approval for this film is not almost universal either. Sorry, but that's a fact. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I'm not particularly attached to "nearly universal" so we can choose another positive summary, like "highly acclaimed" (or "widespread" but the next sentence in that section uses 'wide' already). Anything but "few negative" or any similar construction, which Yes is awkward in this context, as I said above. And I'm not going to debate about what 5% or 95% means here since it's merely Rotten Tomatoes' aggregation, and I'm more concerned with summarizing the overall praise not a sloppy ranking. Let's see what the wikipedia articles say about other recent Oscar winners:

• The_Artist_(film)#Critical_reception "near-universal acclaim" 98%
• The_King's_Speech#Reception "widespread critical acclaim" 95%
• Hurt_Locker#Reception "near universal acclaim" 95%
• Slumdog_Millionaire#Critical_reception "highly acclaimed" 94%
• The_Departed#Reception "universal acclaim" 93%

And with this [8] you've now violated WP:3RR. I suggest you self-revert until we can reach a compromise. El duderino (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is perfectly good English that says exactly the facts of the matter in a neutral way. That's what we're aiming for and I have no idea why you would object to that. Also, I don't think it's such a good idea to want to change the subject once you realize the facts are not that good for your position. This film received good notices, but many films receive better. The number of negative reviews is 14 out of 226. 14 is also the number of countries that border China out of the 207 in the world. Do you think that number is "few" or "very few"? Would you agree that almost no countries border China? I don't think so. It's a substantial amount of dissent, those 14, and we should be accurate about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeating "perfectly good English" doesn't make it so. I've already said it's correct grammar, but that doesn't make it good copy for this encyclopedia article and certainly not in this context. 95% is overwhelmingly positive. I thought you like this film -- so why do you insist on focusing on the 'few negative'? (Which is what happens when you start the section that way.) And what subject am I changing? If you mean my attempt to reach compromise with "highly acclaimed" that's what we do in a collaborative project. Conflating other stats (size of US in one of your edit summaries, now countries bordering China?!) detracts from your argument and it certainly does not lead to a conclusion like "the facts are not that good for your position." I think you are too entrenched in this article and need a break. El duderino (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

See, you are getting into the wp:peacock language again. It is a good critical reception. No one can say it's not positive, but it's not overwhelming. I'm not even whelmed when I see the 25 films that RT scored better in 2007. (Did you go take a look as I suggested?) Now, why is it that you don't want to make a simple comparison with another statistic? I have to say I believe it is because it very obviously contradicts your wish to puff up this article. When you realize that 5% of the world's population lives in the US, you know there's no way you can say it's only a few or very few, or that the number of people who live outside the US is overwhelming. Clearly that is wrong, and once you realize that is wrong, then you know you're wrong about this critical reception matter. So, you can change the article, but you'll still be wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

95% positive is IMHO, is overwhelmingly positive, but in terms of reaching a consensus, why not record that "top critics" (typically meaning accredited or professional media) give it a 91% positive rating, removing it from iffy "tomatometer" aggregate. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

A little research might be required to put this in context since, actually, 95% positive is not uncommon for Rotten Tomatoes. As I've mentioned, it's only 26th best for 2007. Many films score better. This is one of those cases that tempts a film's devotees to inflate the language, as Duderino wants to do. And he changes the terms of the discussion when his arguments are refuted. If he was serious, he would bend over backwards to be sure he's not using peacock language. I haven't seen that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh get off your high horse. Your tiresome 'peacock' reference is misplaced. You don't know if I am a devotee, how serious I am, or anything else about me. And you don't own this article. You didn't refute my arguments nor did I change the terms. You've edit warred against 3 editors, at least, just on this issue alone. And probably countless others judging by your attitude in previous threads. As well as at other articles like Godfather. What does it take to get through to you? I attempted to reason with you early on yet you just dug in your heels. I don't really expect you to actually read this or understand it, because I'm done trying to collaborate with you. El duderino ^(abides) 05:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As you know, I've made reasoned arguments and been willing to compromise. When your reasoning failed in the face the evidence, you attempted to change the subject. Did I miss your compromise proposal? I don't think there was one. So, in what way were you ever "collaborating"? If I were you, I would take it seriously that peacock language should be avoided. My perception is that you didn't. Can you point out where you took it seriously and modified your thinking as a result? That would be evidence on your side. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: repeating what you've said before doesn't make it any more right. Anyone can see how you're misrepresenting your own involvement in the dispute. 98.92.184.205 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume that is ElDuderino or JTBX on a sock puppet. Looks like they can't find an example of their own compromise so are trying to accuse me of dishonesty. That doesn't wash. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed this. That's not me, could be Eldude. JTBX (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My edits to article

I cleared up the plot from 717 words to 688, getting rid of unneeded details while adding those missing. I clarified the Themes section and will begin editing the Reception section because I think it is kind of ridiculous to see a Reception section full of listed quotes. Also I suggest a paragraph in the introduction detailing the making of the film and its themes. --JTBX (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This GA article has a longstanding consensus on the plot summary. Thanks for your interest. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what status it is, I've edited FA articles the same way which were accepted (see American Beauty (film)). Also, where is the consensus? If you could point me there to see what was decided and what improvements were needed. Thanks. JTBX (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is the consensus? So you don't know what a consensus is? Okay, I take note of that. Among the many things you don't know, that is one more. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I said where is it, in terms of the actual discussion which specifically agreed to the plot remaining the way it is. JTBX (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything rather than agreeing to cut down unnnecessary information and improving the word count per guidelines. Which is what I am trying to do. JTBX (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that work is complete. Thanks, anyway, but you are marring the plot summary. I think it's obvious that you decided to edit here because your personal attacks against me almost led to your sanction by EdJohnston. Instead of trying to improve, you now choose to mar this plot summary, too. That is your choice. You can be productive, or you can make a nuisance of yourself. Right now, you are a nuisance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What? I watch all these films. It is true that I came across this as a result of what happened, but when I see a plot summary above 700 I try my best to edit it, which is what I have done. Look through my recent contribs and you will see I edited a lot of plots today. I don't care what articles you choose to edit, because they are not yours. I want to edit a lot on this article as I mentioned in my first post. I am not attacking you personally either. I consider myself a productive member with ideas, maybe all won't be accepted but editors usually provide sound reasoning (see Talk:Predators (film) last section). And of course, while EJ may have nearly sanctioned me I don't think he has seen you call me a nuisance either. JTBX (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, your changes lack consensus and you are continuing your personal attacks in another form. Since you claim you want to be productive, let's see if you can actually do it. When you have a consensus for your changes, then we can make them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Time to retreat to neutral corners, as neither side is about to concede. If you need an objective or uninvolved editor to look at the edits, that can be arranged. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Can you please do so? that would be great. The current plot summary I put forward is on the article I believe.--JTBX (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, both versions are fine, yet both have some stylistic issues that include punctuation, word choice, use of sentence and paragraph structure, as well as the intrinsic "flow". My only advice is to work collaboratively on a passage at a time and come to some personal resolutions on word useage and choice of stylistic devices. As an author and sometime editor in the virtual as well as the "real" world, the following paragraph edit is illustrative of what I would "wordsmith" as an editor:

• Version One: West Texas in June 1980 is desolate, wide open country, and Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) laments the increasing violence in a region where he, like his father and grandfather before him, has risen to the office of sheriff. Word count: 39
• Version two: In desolate West Texas, Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) in June 1980, laments the increasing violence in a region where he, like his father and grandfather before him, has risen to the office of sheriff. Word count: 38

• My version: In June 1980, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), like his father and grandfather, patrols desolate West Texas; lamenting the increasing violence in a region where he is the law. Word count: 26

As you can see, I am even more stringent in "pruning". Calling me in may not be what either of you would want ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC).

Nice job, definitely liking your version there. Though I'm not sure word count is issue as it already is under 700. Any ideas for flow? JTBX (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Bzuk's draft meets with my approval as well. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

lol, he's only proposed one sentence so far. But the main concerns are the other details, like how Moss constructs the pole hanger and son, which are left out. JTBX (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For disclosure, earlier today, I* invited Bzuk to participate more as it seems you both agree that he has something to offer and would be a good neutral source of ideas. Whether or not he will, I have no idea, but I hope so as he seems like a quality editor with good ideas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary

This plot summary has a longstanding consensus that dates back two years. Occasionally it is tweaked, but it doesn't need a makeover. I find the proposed changes almost uniformly inferior. The only thing that can be said for them is that the section is shorter, but many editors over the last two years have agreed that this is about as spare as we want to make it. At one time, this summary was about 900 words, and as a summary of the action is was better. So the judgement of the editors has been that this is about right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You would like to have the plot summaries a bundle of sentences regardless if they violate WP:PLOT or not, having seen your work with Annie Hall. Sadly, it appears you belong to a Fan wiki for films rather than Wikipedia. "Long standing consensus" does not justify not improving the article. "Long standing consensus" can stop this GA article from becoming an FA one. Besides, I do not know why you have created a new section. I ahev brought my changes to the talk page. Reply above please. JTBX (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated at the ANI, WP:DRN is the best solution if you can't reach a consensus here. I would ask that everyone take extra care to be civil, and try to work it out here first. It is obvious that you both are acting in good faith, but we all need to just keep a level head and try to patiently and calmly discuss the issue. Getting personal with the comments isn't helpful, no matter who is doing it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As a casual observer I'll note that user Ring Cinema's contributions to the page and the forum in general appear to be related to a need for an adversarial interaction rather than a constructive one. There are other places on the internet for this sort of "passion", but such an approach doesn't improve the quality of the article. 137.111.13.167 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Too Long!

The article on this film is considerably longer than that on World War 2. Too much information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably too long for now, but it's good material. The article on the war has many linked and related articles, making the main article the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps there is a better comparison to consider. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If the material in the film article is all good then most of it should be in (or deferred to) hyperlinks and/or references, not reproduced in the main article. No article about a film should be as long as that about a world war fought in living memory. Putting more detailed stuff in the hyperlinks or references restores the validity of the comparison with the WW2 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no basis for that in policy, which is all that matters. Your opinion that an article about a film should not be as long as an article about a world war is just that: your opinion. And it is utterly irrelevant. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be *consistent* with Wikipedia policy, but your assertion that Wikipedia policy is all that matters is false. Wikipedia is embedded in the culture of its writers and readers, and that culture contains many conventions that are not in the rules but are understood within that culture. People come here with a reasonable expectation of learning about something in a length of time that reflects the importance of the subject. That is why better-known people generally have longer Wikipedia biogs than less well-known people, which is how it should be. It would be a pity if Wikipedia introduced a rule rather than relied on the commonsense of contributors, but forgive me if I regard World War 2 as a more important event than the release of a movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. WP policy is all that matters, not your cockamamie notions of "the culture of its writers and readers," whatever that means. As you were told above, in addition to the main article on World War Two, there are hundreds of articles on more specific topics, be they battles, vehicles, people, and other subjects relating directly to the war. So, altogether, there are thousands more words on WP about World War Two than there are about this film. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. Your abusive tone does not reflect well on you; please reconsider how you write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I for one certainly do not understand what you are (attempting) to say. I suggest two things:

1. Re-read your copy and maybe then you will understand our point of view that you are making no sense. Perhaps you then may wish to write it again.
2. Get into the habit of signing/dating your posts!

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Gareth: Where nobody is discourteous enough to walk on the grass there is no need for a sign saying "Do not walk on the grass." There are a great many conventions regarding the writing of items for Wikipedia (and indeed all informative writing) that have not been made explicit in Wikipedia's rules. Of course, any writing for Wikipedia should conform to the rules that Wikipedia has chosen to make explicit. Article length IS an issue, as can be demonstrated by asking oneself the question: How long would this article have to be before it was too long? In fact I see that there are Wikipedia guidelines on length. I haven't flagged this article as Too Long, which it deserves, because that would take a Wikipedia account and I prefer not to have one. So I am commenting here. As a non-account-holder my comments get auto-signed with my IP address, which (in the absence of my real name) is more meaningful than a pseudonym. (I prefer not to give my real name and Wikipedia does not require me to do so.)

• ... Aaah? But the 'bot hasn't, has it ... or below in Split or Trim? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk to the bot about that, I didn't hack it! I remain, Sir, 86.53.69.150. Getting back to the subject, comparison with entries for even the most famous films shows that the present entry is anomalously long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no question that this article is long, primarily because of its analysis section, but is that a virtue of completeness or an incompetence of prolixity? Most films don't engage so much intellectual gravity with a similar attempt to explain it. Although there's not a limit on article size any longer, my reading of the guide is that we should be considerate of readers who might not be able to load this page in reasonable time. That said, I don't see a clear method to trim the analysis without doing damage to it. I think the first place to cut would be incoherent, redundant, gratuitous, arbitrary, or onanistic selections; we don't seem to have that. Perhaps others don't agree with that assessment or standard, but I offer it nonetheless. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's just address the real issue, shall we? To the outside observer, it appears that this particular entry and been hijacked by obsessional fanboys who are trying to use it as literary penis-enlargement for their personal egos. The entire entry has become nothing but a masturbatory wank-fest for rabid fanboys, and that's not a good thing. It's fairly obvious just from reading the comments on this page that there's a handful of lunatic-fringe obsessionals who couldn't care less about anything other than ramming their personal fixation with this movie down WikiPedia's throat. 174.23.178.76 (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That elephant was at least alluded to above under "onanistic". But I don't see the basis for your crudely stated accusation. What is it that you find original, onanistic, obsessional, oblivious, otiose, or otherwise outside a normal good faith effort to cover the subject at hand? This is exactly what we're discussing here, but I don't see how you clarify anything except your own form of onanism. Would you care to take another shot at it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Split or Trim?

Split - I think that the "Reception" section is long, and can be split off to reduce the length of this article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of splitting this off into a subsection, in which we can discuss the length and ways of dealing with it.

I think the problem lies in the "themes and analysis" section, which is 24,798 words long (that is a word processor word count, which means all the citations are counted as well, but it is still a fairly accurate count). I think that much of this section, including the numerous sub and sub-subsections, can be removed or trimmed. I removed one paragraph that was analysis of the novel, not the film. How much of it is even necessary or encyclopedic? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What kind of change is contemplated by the Split proposal? Is reception and analysis of a single film a proper subject for its own article? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, no. That is why I suggest a significant trim of the "themes and analysis" section, rather than a split. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the standard you are suggesting? You say it is not encyclopedic to include analysis to this extent, but perhaps this film is different from others. The summaries as written are apparently accurate and it's drawn from diverse sources. It's not OR, either. I am loathe to remove something because it's intelligent and interesting. Although it is obvious that this article is longer than other film articles, that is only a prima facie reason to shorten it. What are we trying to accomplish? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear RingCinema: Do you think this film is different from others, please; if so, why?

Please sign your posts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

@ 86.53.69.150 (talk) After more than 4 years and one month of repeated requests from other users, you are still not signing your posts.

That tells me much about your nature. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me all about my nature.

See above. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Gareth, maybe if you were less worried about him "signing his posts" and more worried about answering his question, you wouldn't come off as such a petulant child. Just saying. The fact that you put "Gareth Griffith-Jones" beside your post hardly makes you a superior human being. I could sign my posts "Gareth Griffith-Jones-Kennedy-Bush III", and it wouldn't really make much difference in the grand scheme of things, now would it? 74.120.34.2 (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you write the unsigned posts above? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing from just a cursory glance of the article. Why does the Reception section use direct lifts from EIGHT Reviews? and the "Criticism" section isn't an actual section. It's just a spot where a ton of Negative snippets were taken from several reviews and just plopped in there. That should ALL be removed and replaced with a couple of consolidated paragraphs that just explain what they're going for. The actual reviews themselves should be in the references if someone wants to read them, but nobody really needs them simply reproduced here. Also, since it's already been split into its own topic, the page can be severaly decreased in size by simply removing the "Themes And Analysis" section entirely and replacing it with a paragraph explaining that the film has been analyzed quite extensively and linking to the actual article for more information. I mean seriously, this page is longer than some short books. There is no reason for it to be this long other than someone who wrote it REALLY digging this movie.DemonRin (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)