Talk:Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

What's with all the anti-white garbage

The racist articles bashing the movie for having a mostly white cast don't belong on here. (Clifton Collins jr. is not white) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BFA1:AEB0:3459:CDA7:34A7:B68E (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Basically whites are now codeword for jews. the people who complain complain how white men run the media and wallstreet and the banks and need to be forced to give up their privledge. sounds like something out of mein kampf if you ask me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:2563:B615:D76B:4A16 (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the vitriolic way in which you state it, I do agree with the sentiment. The movie is about white people operating in an industry run by white people, and one of the major plot lines will involve the killing of a bunch of white people by another bunch of white people. It is a non-issue, and I agree, it shouldn't be included here.Robbmonster (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Casting controversy should be removed.

I question the section's neutrality and it's attempt to smear Quentin Tarantino as a racist, This is bordering on WP:POV editing and is clearly a WP:BLP violation. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere does the section mention Tarantino. Nowhere does the section call the decision racist (white privilege is related but not a synonym for racist). I don't see what could possibly be a BLP issue here. I'm also not clear on what's POV. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

White privledge is a position of racism though, its like saying the jews have privledge because they control the media. and we all know what road that goes down right? one lined with camps and cattle cars. as such the section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:44FC:10E0:5193:ADC3 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. Most of the characters in the story are based on real people who just happened to be a rather 'non-diverse' (read: white) group. Any ideas of 'casting diversity' would only serve to take away the verisimilitude of the characters. And imagine the massive backlash if Tarantino - for the sake of 'diversity' - decided to cast a black man and latina woman to play Tex Watson and Susan Atkins.Robbmonster (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"controversy"

The article claiming that the casting was criticized by "some movie fans" for a lack of diversity literally has 5 tweets only one of which has (a few hundred) retweets or likes. A controversy should actually be a controversy not a random guy on twitter said something. I could go to Twitter and find 5 tweets criticizing anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scznc (talk • contribs) 19:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Casting controversy details

I've edited the article as seen here to merge the casting controversy details into the "Production" section. The "Casting controversy" subsection had two distinct issues which were both reliably sourced. In regard to the above threads, it does not matter what editors personally think about the matter. Wikipedia follows sources, and editors should apply policies and guidelines to present (or not present) information. First, regarding Jamil's criticism of Hirsch's casting, there are definitely sources that pick up on this. However, the sources do not frame it as a casting controversy in a broad sense, so the criticism seems best placed to follow the mention of Hirsch's casting. Furthermore, the other issue of diversity in casting is also reliably sourced. Right now, it does not appear that there are specifics in this critique (especially pre-release), but it seems likely that there may be a more in-depth discussion about this post-release. At that point, a subsection or a separate section may be warranted. For now, I've placed the diversity critique right after the general casting details. If you have any thoughts on these merge-type edits, please weigh in. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The structural alterations seem sensible to me and in the spirit of MOS:PARA. I probably would have moved the casting content to the "cast" section, but it's well integrated as you've done it. Either way, I agree it is not necessary to break the information off into its own section. Betty Logan (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Plot section

Now of course there’s WP:SPOILER to consider but seeing as it’s only had a premiere seen by a handful of people and it’s still two months out from an official release, is it not a bit.....unfair? to include the entire plot when vast majority can’t see this film yet for another two months? Rusted AutoParts 20:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Withdrawing inquiry.

Fair or unfair has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia is about journalism, not PR or fan service for a movie. If people do not want to know the plot or spoil it for themselves, then they don't have to read this, problem solved. Of course there’s WP:SPOILER to consider. It's the only thing to consider. Tarantino's films don't deserve special treatment over any other movie covered by us.2601:282:8300:B761:F55D:37A5:7FC5:28E3 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Um, what’s with the aggression? I am looking for opinions on this. Clearly the inclusion is bothering people and normally I’ll also cite SPOILER. But the fact is the film is not widely released. That is still two months away. I don’t think it’s really fair to have the plot here that early. Rusted AutoParts 21:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Was being direct. Do not intend aggression. I understand your concern but it's caused derision with the press, which itself and noteworthy and newsworthy. We can no longer tag with spoiler alert tags (which I think would've been the best way out). In the past, when movies premiere at even smaller festivals like Sundance, they get plot summaries if it can be scooped. There is no rule or precedent that says a movie can not be summarized until it has a wide release. For instance, some movies premiere at festivals and never get released period. Or got to straight-to-DVD. You can't get more public or wide than Cannes! If people don't want to spoil this movie, then they simply don't have to read this article. Tarantino is more worried with mainstream press spoiling it. Wikipedia isn't broadcast in the same way that, say, NBC or Variety gets disseminated. I actually empathize with this concern, but the journalistic mission of Wikipedia is more important than Tarantino's ego.73.95.136.130 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This isn’t a measure to protect Tarantino or his ego. It’s to protect viewers who do not have the ability to go and see this film for two months, which is basically everyone. Sure an argument can be made about viewers who go to Sundance in January and see a movie like say Official Secrets and other cant see it till August. However the thing is in bluntness not many are likely going to see that film, whereas this is a hotly anticipated film. It just doesn’t seem right that, since roughly 1, 000 people got to see it at a premiere, the millions others waiting for the next few months to see it themselves should have to tread lightly Wikipedaing the film because the plot is already there. I just feel it’s the right thing to do to hold off until July. Rusted AutoParts 21:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Also you have far exceeded the leeway given in WP:3RR by still returning the plot back after being asked multiple times to not put it back. Rusted AutoParts 21:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If 3RR is your concern, then I will revert and keep the plot. It has been said you are being WP:POINTy. Right, fair, unfair has NOTHING to do with the rules and etiquette governing wikipedia. If you feel this strongly, seek dispute resolution. When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by in one's view. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed. Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, as I said, look into dispute resolution.2601:282:8300:B761:88F5:B3C7:5CEE:9B88 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It is appropriate etiquette to have disputed content absent for the duration of a discussion. It’s inappropriate to continuously edit war like the previous IP editor has been doing. I’d advise to not enter a situation you don’t really see to fully grasp to simply scold. Rusted AutoParts 21:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. It should be restored to the pre-edit war version unless there are overriding issues such as BLP violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment replace the plot. We're not here to decide what elements of the plot our readers should see. Arguments about it being "unfair" to readers are redundant. There are movies made decades before I was born which I've never seen yet Wikipedia has the plot of them there, plain as day. This is no different. Restore it, and stop edit warring. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Bad equivalent. Those films made before you were born that have the plots intact are able to be seen at any point. Vast majority of viewers can’t see this film yet for two months. Rusted AutoParts 21:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No, perfect equivalent. Who cares whether the "vast majority" of viewers can or cannot see this? The actual point is that there is no guideline or policy-based reason for your continual removal of this information. You need to stop being disruptive because you're simply applying a personal preference, removing perfectly cromulent information from the encyclopedia, simply because you personally don't think it should be there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed it twice. But please, tell me again how I’m the disruptive one. Your equivalent remains bad. Rusted AutoParts 21:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Because you have no guideline or policy backing up your continued disruption. Show me a policy or guideline that supports your current disruptive edits please. No, perfect equivalent. Just because people haven't/can't see a movie, it doesn't mean we shouldn't have the plot section here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You keep using disruption as if you know what it means. I wasn’t aware two removals constituted that. This was solely an inquiry search in regards to whether the release date being two months away factored in, and I thought it would be proper to keep it out while the discussion occurred. Your input has been noted. Your rudeness and hostility is unwarranted and unwelcome. Rusted AutoParts 21:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing perfectly apt text from an article without any basis in policy or guideline is completely disruptive, once, but twice is worse. Nothing I have said or done has been rude or hostile, simply a statement of fact. If you don't like being picked up when you make such disruptive edits with no backing in policy or guideline whatsoever, don't do it. Your disruption will be noted in other places if it continues, and your rudeness and input noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Vote Keep plot for now. I agree with the rambling man and the other editors, and that's the prevailing consensus so far, backed by precedent supporting the inclusion of plot summaries when scooped. Also, if it needs to be said to those who are caught up in the fan worship side of it, I would add to that that Tarantino has a pretty good personal relationship with his fanbase and the public-at-large (he's good that way) and he has already effectively used the press to ask everyone NOT to spoil the movie for themselves. Mighty wikipedia isn't going to thwart that bond.lol So this dispute really is for nothing and misses the point: which is, this movie deserves no special treatment from us compared to any other insofar as its newsworthiness goes. When Iron Man died in Infinity Wars, I didn't see people rushing to censor that and that was considered a big deal. Just don't read the article if you don't want to spoil the movie for yourself. Same logic goes that if you like a book, don't read the ending first, etc. Nuff' said.2601:282:8300:B761:88F5:B3C7:5CEE:9B88 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I restored this discussion, removed here with an edit summary containing a personal attack about me seeking to pick fights more than provide worthwhile input. The truth of it is that I asked on numerous occasions for policy or guideline-related content which backed up the disruptive edits of Rusted AutoParts, yet nothing was forthcoming. I don't believe that to be "seeking to pick fights". And indeed, the idea that I don't know what "disruptive editing" means when it's staring me in the face is quite absurd, in actuality, it's that which is not "worthwhile input". Censorship undone. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Our hero. Rusted AutoParts 22:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Not at all, just a dedicated editor who knows disruption and removal of text without any backing in policy or guideline whatsoever. Hopefully you won't repeat such behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You came into the discussion immediately accusing me of edit warring. I questioned your equivalency of films already out to films yet to be fully released, you just basically said “nah wrong” and didn’t elaborate. You accused me of being disruptive when my two removals hardly qualifies when I wasn’t even removing them with a “HEY SPOILERS DUDE” attitude. I consider my edit summaries as civil as possible. But yet here we are. I remember you and your...pleasantness from various year articles. I think it’s for the best we leave it here before this goes needlessly further, cause I’ve seen how that tends to end up. Rusted AutoParts 22:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You had already falsely accused an IP of exceeding the remit of 3RR. Your question was fine but irrelevant. Your edits to remove information, not once, but TWICE, were absolutely disruptive on both occasions, because you have not one single jot of guideline or policy to back them up. Removing text on a whim without any kind of policy/guideline backing is disruptive. Don't do it again, because it won't end this well for you next time, I'm sure, as it'll go to ANI or somewhere similar. As for "I consider my edit summaries as civil as possible", I call bullshit on that too, as already demonstrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit huh? Gonna WP:BOLDly restore just the Premise. As per my talk page comment. It’s not gonna be able to be seen for another two months for the vast majority of viewers. That isn’t civil? The addition is being intensely contested by not just me but by other editors. It should not be here until a consensus is reached. Please discuss further before readding this. this constitutes being disruptive? My edit summaries to you were snippy because I tend to throw back what I perceive to be the tone. I had zero intention to revert further cause that’s against the rules. Yes, I was wrong about accusing the IP. The IPS shared similar addresses so I misconstrued them as being one person. I’ll admit that. Exceptions have been made to policy before. If this was something that maybe fallen in that category was something I was wondering but it simply doesn’t matter anymore. No further action will be made from me about this plot section. Rusted AutoParts 22:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, bullshit. My personal experience of your edit summaries (when you use them) was to personally attack me. And no, I didn't say your edit summaries were disruptive, I said your removal of material which belonged in the article was disruptive. It transpires that you edited against a content guideline not once, but twice. Add to that the false accusation of exceeding 3RR, and the personal attack on me, well, say no more. Please don't repeat these mistakes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

My edit summary remark was about prior to our interaction when I was taking the plot out. I won’t pretend my edit summaries after were near being civil. Rusted AutoParts 22:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't care about your edit summaries. You were the one attempting to defend them. That's entirely irrelevant to your disruptive editing here, although it's not a good look. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the verifiable quality source for the specifics in the section with the full plot breakdown? For all we know a lot of elements could be fan fiction. N34B2 (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The plot summary has to be consistent with WP:Verifiable. Is this film publicly available somewhere in the world? If so, then the plot summary should be included. If the film is not publicly accessible (and thus being a primary source for itself) then the plot summary needs to be attributed to reliable secondary sources. Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  The film has been viewed publicly so it is verifiable. It has 42 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, so we're covered on that one. Oh, and is "publicly available" a requirement of MOS:PLOT? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Verifiability states "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Are we, as editors, able to verify this plot summary? Betty Logan (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Betty...I don't know of ANY movie that can be verified plot point for plot point by articles and reviews, even long after a movie has come out, since most critics take care NOT to spoil a movie, especially its ending. I had the fortunate of seeing this movie, for what that is worth, and can verify the twist. The other plot points included, which really aren't spoilers, can be easily verified by the reviews already online. If this is a plot point you question, maybe start with that.73.95.168.132 (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about plot or spoilers, it's about verifiability. Editors are not verifiable sources: the whole concept of verifiability is that it should be possible to verify the claims in the article, either by consulting the primary source (in this case the film) or a secondary source (such as a synopsis written somewhere). WP:FILMPLOT states "...citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources." The MOS appears to be pretty clear cut on this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It does, and says the opposite of what you are saying. "...citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." This is no "lost film" or "upcoming film". It's playing at festivals, the most prestigious one of fact. This was not a closed screening, or a private screening. It was a public screening. WP:FILMPLOT doesn't say we have to wait until a film has "wide release." The movie "Infinity War" is a great example, it had early sneak showings in the days before its opening weekend. Editors didn't have to wait until it official debut to write about it, and that had some big spoilers (i.e. Ironman dying, Capt. America hanging up his shield, etc.) I wouldn't overthink this.73.95.136.176 (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The guideline backs up precisely what I am saying.. The key point is that of verifiability, which is a core policy. I and the other editors cannot verify the plot is accurate because it is not publicly available, so to all intents and purposes it is an upcoming film. Until it is publicly released somewhere in the world the plot needs to be cited to secondary sources, otherwise the plot is not verifiable (hence the bit in brackets in the guideline). Betty Logan (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

We are told it "has 42 reviewers" but that is completely irrelevant since none of professional ones, nor do the aggregate of them, verify a number of the plot points.N34B2 (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope. "Verifiability" is only necessary for movies that are "lost" or "upcoming". As the guidelines make clear, it is not necessary for movies that are actively playing at festivals or in some kind of release. That is why we don't add citations to plot points in a summary. This summary is already very vague. For instance, I didn't include the spoiler that Sharon Tate's character is trained by Bruce Lee and gets revenge against her attacks in a Kill Bill style in the showdown climax. I didn't include it because it isn't necessary to get THAT detailed in these things. As for the rest, almost every critic worth his salt saw this, and a huge audience for multiple screenings. Reviews seldom, even for a wide release, spell out the WHOLE plot in a way you could verify. Look, you are being WP:POINTy and trying to mis-read this to say you can't summarize a plot until wide release. And because this film not so coincidentally has an egotistical direction making the unusual request for the world to NOT spoil his gimmicky film, there is an agenda there that can't be ignored in this dispute. It is very much a factor in this, but not a guideline for Tarantino. If you need, list the plot points here and I can back them up in review after review if you need me to go through that tired exercise. All the plot points, believe it or not, ARE backed up by the press. Tarantino asked the press and the audience to not spoil his movie. Not everyone complied ;) 73.95.136.224 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

the plot as given is inaccurate. I deleted; Wikipedia shouldn't be misleading people. You all need to wait till the film is out and the whole thing can be verified. NoahB (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Some editors who have come to edit the page claim they have seen the movie. It was made public at Cannes in a high profile screening. Are you basing your opinion on your personal experience of the movie or hearsay? I can understand your position if you saw the movie, and will just have to trust you. Otherwise it will most likely be reverted by those claiming to have seen it.73.95.133.103 (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment As of 9:41am on 7/24/19, we have a critic writing for a notable publication who has seen the film saying the current plot summary "is completely wrong. Just utter made-up bullshit" . Perhaps a synopsis citing an official source would suffice until such time as a typical person would have access to the primary source to fact check a full summary. I mean, does someone get to just write whatever they want for a movie not in wide release and that becomes the de facto truth? "The first person who lies wins" is a weird way to run an encyclopedia. Cigarette (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Saw the movie over the preview weekend at the Cinerama Dome, the plot section is hilariously wrong, where did that nonsense even come from? 204.100.181.190 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Plot: Tate's fate

The film is not yet widely (officially) released for everyone therefore [to reveal if/how a significant character dies or lives] "ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers." And I think it's also just using common sense. In the last paragraph, starting from: Lee... it should be removed.

WP:PLOTSUM states: Wikipedia should contain potentially "spoiling" detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact, but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers. Airkaysky0p (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT says nothing of this. WP:SPOILERS makes it even clearer. This was already brought up with administration on another board which said this is more of a PR concern for Sony that one for wikipedia. The plot summary is kept very vague, omitting for instance from the ending how the Sharon Tate's character becomes an action hero herself. The showdown itself is an intricate mini-horror movie, a kind of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" meets "Game of Death" meet's "From Dusk Till Dawn", and NONE of those details are mentioned, nor is it obnoxiously spelled out. But truncating the plot summary itself when it is topically-relevant?? Um, no. There is a difference between spoiling a movie and ruining a film's gimmick. There is nothing in the summary that spoils this film. But, yes, it robs Sony and Tarantino of a gimmick which quite frankly has nothing to do the art of fiction, but with the marketing of a product. However, this very vague plot summary nicely omits the storytelling of that final act, which should be its really surprise and sense of wonder. Wikipedia is not the mainstream press for this film, and the critics and press are the main source of info for it. If a reader doesn't want to ruin this film for himself, then they should stay away from reddit and wikipedia. But Wikipedia is very firmly AGAINST censorship and given its journalistic mission, it has a duty to report on topically-relevant information and NOT act as a corporate mouthpiece or corporate enabler of marketing gimmicks. Neither WP:FILMPLOT nor WPPPLOTSUM says anything about a film needing to be in wide-release. Once a film like this starts playing for the public at huge film festivals, it's par for the course. The movie has debuted for the public. That was Tarantino's choice to screen it at a festival. If this was really his concern, he should've simply waited for opening weekend like the Marvel people did with Infinity War 2, fearful that Ironman's death would be leaked. I would agree with you if the screening for this film was a press screening or a secret closed door screening, but it is not. And editors have a fundamental first Amendment free speech right to report on this movie as long as it doesn't become an act of trolling, which in this case it is clearly not. Cheers73.95.138.238 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Just saying my peace. It is elaborated in WP:PLOTSUM under Spoilers. It's unfortunate reasoning to try to right a spoiler off as a gimmick, by definition it remains a spoiler whether or not you thought it was a gimmick.

And Reddit has rules about spoilers, while Wikipedia states "[x] may be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers." This unfortunately has ruined my experience and it will continue to ruin it for other readers who seek out the plot of a film long before it is released on Wikipedia. Airkaysky0p (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And yet you were aware by Tarantino's own warnings in the press and elsewhere to do yourself a favor as a fan and stay clear of online spoilers. How is that Wikipedia's fault? Ironically, the same bad logic is used to argue why Tarantino movies should be censored, saying we should not be allowed to see or experience certain things. It is simple, you shouldn't have given into the temptation to spoil this plot for yourself. The plot spoilers "etiquette" above refer to obnoxious trolling. There is no play by play summary here that ruins the "storytelling." Should the final pages of a book be withheld by the publisher until you get to the end? Yet, you can spoil a book right now by going into a book store and reading the ending. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, it is not a substitute for the movie itself. The minute you see the words "plot summary" then be a good boy and stop reading. If a movie can be so easily ruined by a wikipedia page, then Tarantino and company need to start making better movies FCS. Yes, it IS a gimmick and movie marketing substituting for good storytelling when the fear of a critic writing a review or an internet forum can ruin the movie-going experience. How the movie is told, its storytelling, is the real surprise when done with integrity and no effort has been made here to ruin that. It's not like this article links to some bootleg of the film. The real sin is that it has come to this: egotistic directors begging the world to treat their movies as special when shouldn't the movie speak for itself? Sure....because there is far more money and attention scored this way if we meekly cowtow like good little sheep and consumers and treat mediocrity as great because ego tells us to. Ironic that for a movie about grieving over the loss of the Hollywood golden era. and its spirit of innocence, that we don't try to be that gold standard as a culture and an audience and simply show some self-restraint and have higher standards. Instead we rely on the movie and its money shots and gratuitousness and marketing gimmicks to do the work for us. That's not how art works in my book. And that's the deal: this movie just isn't that good. Maybe, just maybe, you'd have a point if it was. But's the problem. And I believe in that saying that you stay out of the way of karmic forces. The only thing being spoiled here is Tarantino's ego and someone, someday, had to point out that Weinstein's Emperor had no clothes. Just saying "my peace." Cheers73.95.139.159 (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. If it makes you feel better, the plot summary leaves out Sharon's Tate's transformation as a character in the climax and there is no mention about the fate of Charlie Manson himself in the movie, or what happens exactly to each of his followers in the showdown. A lot of fun stuff and gory details that gorehounds and exploitation movie fans is left out of this summary, as it should be. My disappointment is I went in wanting a movie that was promising to be a thoughtful bio about the "Manson Murders", at least in some sense, and instead got a grindhouse fantasy fan film, call it the "Hollywood Spaghetti-Kungfu Massacre". I liked this movie the first time around when it was called "Boogie Nights" but again, just saying "my peace."73.95.139.159 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate plot

Plot was made up by someone who probably has not seen a movie. In many places it contained incorrect informations. I saw a movie in Cannes (as a proof here is my instagram account with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood premiere in history: https://www.instagram.com/patrykkaflowski/) and especially the ending looked different. I do not add an improved plot due to the director's request. I tried to delete it but it's always restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirosz (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

What, exactly, is incorrect? The plot summary should not be removed, but if there are incorrect details those should be fixed. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As I don't think that polt should be here before public screenings (especially that Tarantion said that he want change some things) but here you have some lies about the story. SPOILER ALERT: For example there was no Bruce Lee in last scene (he is not a significant character in the film). Last scene is not in Polanski's house. There is no Manson in last scen and some other things. I think someone made it up based on the trailer and rumors so now POLT section contains idea for another movie. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirosz (talk • contribs) 21:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the people who wrote the plot summary forgot some details - that is pretty common, and understandable. If you want to improve the Wikipedia article you could either provide the exact differences here ("some other things" doesn't tell us much) or update the article without removing any of the accurate information. No need for spoiler warnings here, and note that we don't censor film plots or avoid spoilers. --bonadea contributions talk 06:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Forgot some details and change place, add Bruce Lee with kung fu fight and Manson and killed one of the main characters despite the fact that he really survived? These are not just details but it change story. I do not understand why something that is not true is still in Wikipedia. It was only one screening and not final version of movie. Tarantino ask keep plot in secret and I understand it. After premiere of final version it will be ok of course but not now for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirosz (talk • contribs) 06:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, what screening did you see? lol Are you saying that Bruce Lee does NOT show up in the end and Manson (yes, despite his short screening time) is NOT killed in the movie? Tate is saved, that's the big thing Tarantino wants to keep a secret even though as you point out you can see it a mile away. This was basically a riff on "Inglorious Basterds", which he tips his hat by including an homage-to-himself in the film as a sort of cue of what to expect. Like in "Basterds" where Hitler is killed by the militant jews in a revisionist history twist, this movie pulls a similar sleight of hand and the Manson murder plot is thwarted (sorta, if you don't consider the sacrifice made by the heroes). Maybe it is your broken English (no offense intended) but I was confused by your objection. Clarify perhaps? Cheers! 73.95.136.178 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Lol? I watched the movie in Cannes. There was any other screening? The Manson group is about to attack Polanski's house, but they decide to attack Rick's house. There is Rick, his wife and Booth in it. At the end, Booth is alive. No Manson, no Bruce Lee (but it could be fun). What screening did you see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A31A:A041:A00:9847:5DB9:B47B:AD60 (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This dispute vindicates my point above. The plot summary currently fails WP:Verifiability i.e. it cannot be verified by a member of the general public. Betty Logan (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Untrue. Some critics have spoiled this movie in press elsewhere. I'm suspecting that the user above is either part of a disinformation campaign on behalf of Sony or an over-zealous fan of Tarantino. Either way, the cat is out of the bag. However, Tarantino has indicated he could significantly "re-edit" the movie given the polarizing, lackluster response to his controversial storytelling decisions. In whatever way the movie may change from now to its next release, we can always update the plot section to reflect those changes. Don't overthink or soapbox this.73.95.168.132 (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

In what capacity is what I said "untrue". This is what Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Please give me specifics about how I, a person using the encyclopedia" can "check that the information comes from a reliable source". Please demonstrate my untruthfulness to the community if you are going to make such claims. Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Plot summaries require a far lower threshold otherwise we'd have regular citations throughout a summary, for which we don't. The only reason you are (very likely) pushing this is because of Tarantino's personal request that we not spoil his film, regardless of conflict of journalism to report, of which wikipedia (ideally) embodies (I wish, more of the time). If the movie is re-cut or there turns out to be some misunderstanding, then the article will naturally correct itself as every other article does. We don't afford this movie some special treatment over others simply because a powerful rich celebrity asks his fanbase to do so. You froze this article for a week or so and the talk page didn't reflect any change in the prevailing consensus that the plot summary stands as it is written, which is why protection was removed. Many editors have reverted this back again and again despite efforts by overzealous fans, Sony hacks, and trolls to remove "spoilers." Are you telling me they are all wrong? That this plot (at worst) is just completely made up?! I'm only accusing you of overthinking this, period, and (possibly) enabling the fan worship. In a couple weeks, this will be a settled matter and the movie and the audience (and wikipedia) won't be any worse for wear. Censoring the plot summary at this point would break with precedent in a way that is simply disruptive. Not sure what else to tell you.73.95.137.5 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Plot summaries don't have a lower verifiability threshold. They simply don't require citations in the case of films that have been released because they are self-citing i.e. editors can either go to the theater and watch the film or acquire it on home media/download. This is what WP:FILMPLOT says:

Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.

Since the film is not publicly available anywhere in the world in any format it fails the verifiability criterion and you have once again have not explained how I, as an editor, am able to verify the plot summary as required by WP:Verifiability. It's probably time to elevate this dispute to an RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, untrue. It was made publicly available at Cannes, and many critics and public folk (like myself) saw it. Some movies, like Kevin Smith's "Red State" had exactly one public screening in L.A. and then another at Sundance before he went on the road with it, only to latter release it on demand. The Mike Judge film "Idiocracy" is another example a film with scarce screenings that was very publicly discussed until it had a mass release. Honestly, you trying to game this, which is too a violation for your very probable personal agenda, see WP:GAMING. There are some movies that privately screen, or are stuck in test screenings until opening day (or not screened at all for critics). That is what you are referring to whether you want to admit it or not. And yes, those films probably can not be properly summarized. However, "Once upon a time in Hollywood" had a very high profile public screening. This is not an "upcoming film" or a "lost film", as you are suggesting. This was available to the public and there is enough chatter about it between the critics, spoiler websites, and other sources. Just because you are not willing to look at the sources yourself doesn't mean you have a valid RFC dispute. Tarantino has had other films screened this way, and they were summarized in the plot screening despite not having a "mass screening." The only difference is Tarantino has a special request for this film, one you are trying to enforce on the rest of us. But threaten all you like, what do I care.lol Corporate censorship isn't a victory even if you do find a way to tantrum and whine you way into that outcome somehow. Good luck with your RFC.XD73.95.137.5 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

By your logic, Betty, we could never summarize a movie in most circumstances. Honestly, how many reviews or actual press go through the trouble of summarizing a movie point by point or spoil the movie's ending in a way we can verify for the purpose of properly summarizing a movie here? Few indeed. Most reviews and press only discuss a reviewer's thoughts or impression, or give a bare outline of a movie, taking care not to spoil a movie even after it has been out for a while. Other than wikipedia, I can't think of any other press we can cite for any movie and the guidelines seem to trust the general public with this task. Forums are not allowed to be used as a citation when it come to citing a source so unless you are calling for a massive unreasonable change in how movies are covered by editors, it feels like this is an esoteric complaint by you for just this film. I re-read the WP:PLOT guidelines, including the parts you conveniently left out. Once a movie has had a high enough public profile screenings, it is fair game to be scooped by wikipedians. The only difference as far as I can see is that the movie's director is making a special request. I actually agree with him, and as a movie lover I have done my best to personally censor myself so as to not read anything about the movie. But for those who are not movie connoisseurs, it's not really our place to keep information from them. It's a stretch to assume wikipedia supports your claim. I had to stop reading one review that began to spoil the movie's ending for me, so the information is already out there. In a couple of weeks, this will be a moot point anyways, as the other editor has pointed out.73.95.138.238 (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I send you a proof that I was at the premiere of the movie. Someone who wrote the wrong plot summary has no evidence that he saw the movie (he probably didn't see it and made up the ending based on rumors and promotional materials). Despite thet that for many days on Wikipedia, the plot summary contains serious errors. I have nothing more to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.159.128.234 (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the sourcing of the plot summary

The article includes a plot summary for a film that has not entered general release, and is not sourced to secondary citations. MOS:FILMPLOT does not usually require a citation because the film itself is regarded as a primary source; however, exceptions to this include "upcoming" and "lost" films which are not available to the public to verify, and in such cases MOS:FILMPLOT requires a secondary source. Since the film is not currently "available to the public to verify" (it was made briefly available to a select audience at the Cannes film festival) does the lack of availability and a secondary citation mean that the summary violates WP:Verifiability and MOS:FILMPLOT? If so should the plot summary be removed from the article until general release, in the absence of a citation? Betty Logan (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• REMOVE – WP:Verifiability states that "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Currently, for this film, this is not the case. Wikipedia editors will not be able to access the film until its general release to verify the plot elements. As the section above this one testifies this is already causing problems because certain plot elements are disputed. I believe that even though the film briefly played at Cannes this is still primarily an "upcoming" film, and any claims about the plot should be cited to a secondary source. A film (such as Avengers Endgame) does not as a rule require a source because the film itself is considered a primary source, and once it has entered general release (thus becoming publicly accessible) the plot summary can be verified. This is clearly not the case here. In other ways it is a like a lost film i.e. a film that was once accessible but no longer is which also requires a secondary source. At the moment I believe inclusion of the plot summary violates both WP:Verifiability and MOS:FILMPLOT and should be removed. I have asked twice above how the plot is verifiable and I just got evasive answers. Betty Logan (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• KEEP The above user is deceptively blurring the lines, trying to confuse a general release with a public release. A film does not need to be in a general release to be summarized on wikipedia. It only needs to be publicly released. This film has received a high profile public release and I, and several friends, have already seen in it France at the very public Cannes film festival, just to give you an example of how public this was. If necessary I can provide a screenshot of my ticket to the public screening. I believe the above user, Betty Logan, is engaging in WP:GAMING since her agenda is based upon celebrity Tarantino's unusual request that the public not spoil his film, something WP:SPOILER already acknowledges in not of importance to us. Some critics have spoiled this movie in press elsewhere, so this information is out there, and wikipedians shouldn't be punished for having scooped it just because a rich, powerful celebrity like Tarantino has ordered his fanbase into a censorship posture.

Plot summaries require a far lower threshold otherwise we'd have regular citations throughout a summary, for which we don't. The only reason Betty and a handful of other disruptive editors like her are (very likely) pushing this is because of Tarantino's personal request that we not spoil his film, regardless of the conflict of journalism to report on it, a journalistic ideal of which wikipedia (ideally) embodies (I wish, more of the time). If the movie is re-cut or there turns out to be some misunderstanding, then the article will naturally correct itself as every other article does. We don't afford this movie some special treatment over others simply because a powerful rich celebrity asks his fanbase to do so. Betty had already froze this article for a week or so under a frivolous protection request, and the talk page didn't reflect any change in the prevailing consensus that the plot summary stands as it is written, which is why protection was removed. The majority of editors who come here have evolved into a prevailing consensus, having protected the current plot summary over the last several weeks on several occasions, despite efforts by overzealous fans, Sony hacks, and trolls to remove "spoilers." In a couple weeks, this will be a settled matter and the movie and the audience (and wikipedia) won't be any worse for wear. Censoring the plot summary at this point would break with precedent in a way that is simply disruptive.

Again, it was made publicly available at Cannes, and many critics and public folk (like myself) saw it. Some movies, like Kevin Smith's "Red State" had exactly one public screening in L.A. and then another at Sundance before he went on the road with it, only to latter release it on demand. The Mike Judge film "Idiocracy" is another example a film with scarce screenings that was very publicly discussed until it had a mass release. Those film were scooped, and were properly summarized on wikipedia, because they were considered to be in public release despite not experiencing something resembling a traditional general release. With the landscape changing, with Netflix movies sometimes being release in streaming and in theaters, this fear of spoiling a movie is even less relevant to us. Bottom line: unless stated otherwise, once a movie is shown to the public in any form, it is fair game. However, "Once upon a time in Hollywood" had a very high profile public screening compared to even those far crazier examples. This is not an "upcoming film" or a "lost film", as Betty is suggesting. This was available to the public and there is enough chatter about it between the critics, spoiler websites, and other sources that we can report on it.. Just because Betty and users like her do not want to spoil the film for themselves, and actually look into the sources themselves, doesn't mean she has a valid RFC dispute. Tarantino has had other films screened this way, at public film festivals, and they were summarized in the plot screening ASAP despite not having a "general screening." The only difference is Tarantino has a special request for this film.

Finally, as another pointed out, according to Betty's self-serving logic, we could never summarize a movie in most circumstances. Honestly, how many reviews or actual press go through the trouble of summarizing a movie point by point or spoil the movie's ending in a way we can verify for the purpose of properly summarizing a movie here? Few indeed. Most reviews and press only discuss a reviewer's thoughts or impression, or give a bare outline of a movie, taking care not to spoil a movie even after it has been out for a while. Other than wikipedia, I can't think of any other press we can cite for any movie and the guidelines seem to trust the general public with this task. Forums are not allowed to be used as a citation when it come to citing a source so unless you are calling for a massive unreasonable change in how movies are covered by editors, it feels like this is an esoteric complaint by you for just this film. I re-read the WP:PLOT guidelines, including the parts you conveniently left out. Once a movie has had a high enough public profile screenings, it is fair game to be scooped by wikipedians. The only difference as far as I can see is that the movie's director is making a special request. It's a stretch to assume wikipedia supports Betty's claim.73.95.137.39 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• COMMENT The 73.95.137.39 makes several untrue allegations against me. He accuses me of being a shill for Tarantino but it can easily be confirmed by checking the edit history I have never even edited the article. It can also be verified by checking my own extensive edit history I have no special interest in Tarantino's films, although I may have edited some of his film articles over the years. I am only involved in this discussion as a result of the request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive_72#Discussion of plot inclusion at Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Betty Logan (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep a non-secret film festival screening should count as the film having been released. Also, generally the survey section of an RfC is not the place to dump four paragraphs of argumentation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• COMMENT Sorry for being so verbose. PTSD from having to revert all the trolls trying to censor the plot section. Thank you for the feedback. Cheers.73.95.138.219 (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Query. Is it possible to verify the content? If so, how? Please ping with reply. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• COMMENT There are forums and several reviews that you have to parse through but the information is ultimately out there and it is not worth the tedious exercise listing it all here for a relatively WP:POINTy concern. The problem with any movie, even one that has been in general public release for years, is that most reviews will rarely give a plot-point by plot-point summary, let alone spoil the ending, so that wikipedia can verify the plot in a way that would satisfy too strict a standard, which I'm guessing why the standard is not strict. None of the movie articles are sourced for the summary in the way the rest of the article is, and the rules for plot summaries explains why. Critics will often analyze and briefly outline a movie, since their job isn't to summarize movies. There are very few websites, outside of forums or blogs, that document a movie this way. And forums and fanpages for movies are not considered verifiable, so there is no point in even going there. If you re-read the guidelines for how to summarize a movie here, you will see a fairly loose standard that more or less trusts the public without strict sourcing. Otherwise virtually every movie on wikipedia would have to be removed for lack of proper citations. The good news is that as this movie very soon will be seen in wider and wider release, rendering this issue a moot point, and the article will naturally correct itself, especially if the film is re-edited or re-shot (as Tarantino has hinted he might do). The movie "Infinity Wars: End Game", for instance, is promising a re-release with more scenes involving Tony Stark after he dies. That will certainly change the summary as well, since that will ultimately change the plot for a movie that is already well-established, challenging this notion that only movies in the widest possible release can be scooped. If there are errors here, I don't think in the bigger scheme of things it really matters, because these things work themselves out. Only the fear of spoiling the movie is at play here, one that WP:SPOILERS explains is not of concern to us. Just let the chips fall where they may like any other movie article. My 2 cents. Cheers.2601:282:8300:B761:6894:9481:B185:3502 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The plot summary shouldn't be removed, but if there are incorrect details those should be fixed.FussbussSOhush (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  How can they be fixed if the work is not verifiable? So far none of the keep votes have actually explained how the plot is consistent with Wikipedia's core policy. Betty Logan (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• COMMENT People who vote don't have to justify their reasoning. The next revision of this film will be in wider release in, what, less than six days? What ever errors this film's summary has, either in changes made to it since Cannes or any possible false information, will certainly correct itself by then. Not worth all this fuss. Respect the consensus for now and don't be so disruptive by being so WP:POINTy.FussbussSOhush (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well yes they do have to provide a reason actually, because an RFC is WP:NOTAVOTE. Also, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override core policies. Editors who have voted to retain the plot have so far evaded the question: how is the plot verifiable? Betty Logan (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• COMMENT There is also something called WP:SOAPBOXING which is behavior you should stop engaging in. Editors voting actually have provided their reasoning. What I meant by that was "they don't have to answer to you." We have given you our reasons. You just don't agree with it.

It is clear what you want is some kind of proof or justification that is simply a headache. I don't see a single film article on wikipedia that is heavily sourcing their film summaries. Why does this deserve special treatment? Because a bratty filmmaker tweeted about it? There is inherent difficulty in doing this given that reviews seldom give a point by point plot summary in a way that we can verify short of actually seeing the movie. Articles on film take great care, as a rule, not to spoil a movie in any circumstance.

The wikipedian "core" standard for how to summarize a movie plot seems loose enough that editors are simply trusted with this task of summarizing it once the film has been released publicly somehow, which it was when in debuted in France. Filmmaker politics is turning this into a bigger issue than it really is. Look, if you feel so strongly about it, just delete the summary yourself providing your justification. If a conflict arises then I would imagine an ANI will result that will resolve this for you. For now, the admins patrolling this don't seem to think all that strongly about this WP:POINTY concern, which is why I imagine they have stayed silent.

If this does go to administration the problem is that by the time this is resolved by them the movie will be in larger release which renders your original concern moot. Already the press is reporting that Tarantino has made changes to this film, with new end scenes for instance. This plays out one way or another in the next few days whether you like it or not.

Whatever core values you think are being so terribly violated probably need to be reformed on a much larger scale for films period since it is such a mess all around given all the drama that surrounds these things. I don't think this movie is the best candidate for that reform given the esoteric nature of the politics and fans surrounding it and Tarantino. Learn to pick and choose your battles IMHO. Good luck. FussbussSOhush (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT: I explain in my first comment why I think this plot summary needs to be sourced and something like Avengers: Endgame does not. This RFC poses a very clear question: Since the film is not currently "available to the public to verify" (it was made briefly available to a select audience at the Cannes film festival) does the lack of availability and a secondary citation mean that the summary violates WP:Verifiability and MOS:FILMPLOT? Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT: It was made available to the public to verify at a major film festival. THE major film festival in Cannes. People have come to the wikipedia article claiming to have seen it. You know, the public? The precedent on wikipedia for how we summarize films is that we trust the public. For instance, I'm not in a position right now to see several movies in the theater simply because I can't afford to go given the high price of tickets. That doesn't mean others who have seen it can not come here to summarize the film because I, and other in my very similar lot, are denied the opportunity to verify it. Editors of film summaries on wikipedia, in general, do not use secondary citation and that is the tradition here for better or worse.

So, to answer your "question" (having addressed the misleading parts of it), the answer is "no", there is no violation here because film summaries themselves suffer from a subjectivity that is inherent to the art form, making it is better to let the living part of a wikipedia article help filter out the errors over time. Getting the information wrong isn't a violation. Maybe a better question is: should the tradition change of how we cover film articles? Everything from the inherent bias on wikipedia against critics who pan a movie, to the problem of aggregators being quoted as gospel, and the stupid arguments of whether or not a film is a flop, make we wonder if we shouldn't have stricter rules and monitoring of these things to deter the internet mob rule that often impairs the objectivity of these things.

But for this odd ball Tarantino film, I'm wondering if Tarantino created this Barbara Streisand effect drawing attention to his insecurities and, hence, manifesting his worst fears with his weird request: daring the public to spoil the film when, had he said nothing at all, maybe people would've respected him more for having faith in the audience? If anything, it will be interesting to see if Tarantino created a bigger PR problem for himself trying to inflate the importance of him film this way. Guess we will see in a week. Nice conversing with you.FussbussSOhush (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Remove per Betty Logan's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Seeing that the film is out now, this discussion is moot. Calidum 04:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - The film has premiered, the plot is known, the film is now in theaters. Netherzone (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Casting information

Daniella Pick plays Daphna Ben-Cobo in this film. Not Ben Chabo as seen on the page. You can confirm this by looking on IMDB. Also, she is a fictional character. Not a real one. The character should not be listed as a real person. Also Jack Nicholson has an uncredited cameo in the film. Thank you. I hope you are able to fix these mistakes. The real Quentin Tarantino (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

False information

Just a heads up to whoever is in charge. There's a lot of mistakes on this page. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Tim Roth portrayed Jay Sebring's butler. It's in the Deadline interview. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Page locked

Why was this page locked from editing? I believe it was done by Rusted Auto Parts, who for some reason couldn't accept that others knew more about this movie and the cast than he did. Can someone unlock it? It has fictional characters listed as real people. It has character's names obviously misspelled. Anyone can verify my statements by simply doing a google search of the character names listed as real people. Anyone can see that names are misspelled by checking IMDB. It's unfortunate that the page was locked because apparently someone got his ego hurt, unless you can tell me another reason. There was no vandalism being done to this page. However, since it's been locked false information has been added. I highly recommend that either you unlock the page of fix these obvious mistakes. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The Page was locked because IP editors would not stop adding in names without a source despite being asked to source them. Who cares if you or others know more about the movie? Source your additions, especially when most of those names aren’t notable cast members, or in Jack Nicholson’s case a big name actor who’s not acted in nine years. You can’t just toss his name into an article without something to back that up with. “who for some reason couldn't accept that others knew more about this movie and the cast than he did” is needless incivility. Rusted AutoParts 03:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Tim Roth portrayed Jay Sebring's butler. You can check this on the deadline interview. You can find many articles that mention Jack Nicholson's appearance. Daniella Pick plays Daphna Ben-Cob. Not Daphna Ben Chabo. You can confirm that on IMDB. Allen Kincaid and Daphn Ben-Cobo are fictional characters, not real ones, like the page suggests. That's just common knowledge. So that information should be corrected if you want an accurate page. That's where you can get those citations and make the proper edits. I would but I'm locked out, so now you can back up your words. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Daphna Ben-Cobo Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Btw you have no citations in the plot, so you should probably delete it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"an overall positive view"

How can a film with an approval rating of 92% with an average rating of 8.19/10 and a score of 88 out of 100 on Metacritic be "and overall positive review"? It should be changed to a critically acclaimed movie, movies with less general approval on these rating pages have more than "an overall positive view". I changed it twice but someone keeps changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinnkerton (talk • contribs) 11:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Metacritic and Rotten tomatoes are aggregators and are worthless for our purposes, especially metacritic (which uses a bot to generically come up with its "measurement.") Read the guidelines about proper citations for film articles and they warn against placing too much weight on aggregators, with their up and down approach. Wikipedia relies on sources that can be properly verified. And movies aren't a quantifiable event in, say, the same way the SuperBowl is an up and down affair. For instance, there are many Marvel movies with higher RT scores than classic movies like "The Godfather" or "Jaws." And as much as I love "Black Panther" you can't tell me that it is a better movie than "Taxi Driver".lol.. The truth about Tarantino's latest movie is that, yes, a majority of critics thought the movie was good. But the clear plurality of major and minor critics are stopping short of calling it a masterpiece. As far as "critical acclaim" goes, that is simply not true. For starters, the film was rushed into release at Cannes. The movie was overly long and features a controversial history where Tarantino rewrites history and saves Sharon Tate, turning her into this grindhouse heroine of sorts out for revenge. Most critics are divided over this. Tarantino was actually disappointed in their response to his premiere, despite a standing ovation that was more out of politeness but very short from being blown away. Tarantino acknowledged as much and has talked about re-editing his film before its next mass release. Even so, the movie did receive high marks for its set design and its casting choices. It gets enough love on the wiki article as it is. But this problem on wikipedia film articles trying to game a movie, watering down movies that are critically slammed or doing PR for a film because the Tarantino fan worship dictates as much is what is ruining the journalistic integrity of wikipedia and why wikipedia is a joke to the public so often. Look at violations surrounding "weasel words", "original research" and "gaming" if you are unclear about wikipedia's stance. It's always better to report, in the voice of the press in their own words, than apply our spin or interpretations. Just keep it real.2601:282:8300:B761:5139:6884:1C52:9A95 (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:AGG "review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus", and editors certainly should not be drawing their own conclusions from the stats. They provide quantitative analysis, and if you want to make qualitative claims about the reception (such as being "critically acclaimed") then such claims need to be sourced just like every other claim in the article, in accordance with WP:DUE. Betty Logan (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents here: just because we can’t use Metacritic to say “the film received acclaim” in the lead does not mean this article should be the only one on Wikipedia to not summarize its findings in the Reception section. Metacritic assigned it a “universal acclaim” for its site. It gave Batman v Superman a “mixed or average” but the article says critics were generally negative. Omitting the summary because it may not fit the narrative seems odd and, for lack of a better word in my humble opinion, needless. TropicAces (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:AGG "review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus", and editors certainly should not be drawing their own conclusions from the stats. They provide quantitative analysis, and if you want to make qualitative claims about the reception (such as being "critically acclaimed") then such claims need to be sourced just like every other claim in the article, in accordance with WP:DUE. So we don't say "critically acclaimed" when it contradicts verifiable sources. The majority of critics "liked" this movie but there is also a plurality of critics who are divided over the movie's ending despite liking it. The best I could find was that critics had an overall "positive reception", which is the press consensus, and that is far from "universal acclaim". Metacritic is a bot, not a journalist.Re-read WP:AGG which says "review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus" and clearly states that actual "commentary should come before reporting aggregate scores" and that aggregate scores only "can complement this commentary", not contradict. P.S. It is odd that you would trust a mindless bot that comes up with an unscientific number about whether a movie is hurr derr good or bad, like this is some kind of football game, than the analysis of qualified press that present more nuanced and thoughtful analysis. Please stop being so WP:POINTy and please leave your dogma about this at the door. FussbussSOhush (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Tropic Aces...WP:AGG says we can use aggregators like Metacritic to "compliment" the sources as long as the sources say what the aggregator does. I think Batman v Superman is a bad example for your agenda as that is a great example of when Metacritic gets it so wrong. Critics clearly panned that movie yet if you were to believe Metacritic is got an okay reception. Another issue is that Metacritic doesn't even do a full sample, leaving out many critics that Rotten Tomatoes acknowledges. The press is pretty good at calling this, like they doing with the "Lion King" remake right now, which they are accurately reporting as clearly panned by critics despite audiences loving it to death.73.95.168.132 (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither of those responses are actual arguments in not including Metacritic’s findings. One is confusing “don’t use the aggregators as sources for summarizing reviews throughout the article” with “do not include them at all”, and other is comparing critic and audience response(?) TropicAces (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

So you are purposely ignoring the rules, and engaging in WP:OWN. Nice one. For the last time, clearly when an aggregator is contradicted by an actual source, the actual source takes precedent, hence, why "review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus" according to WP:AGG. If you want to make qualitative claims about the reception, such as being "critically acclaimed", which is a bold claim, then such claims need to be sourced just like every other claim in the article, in accordance with WP:DUE. Aggregators are not sources, though they are abused in this way often in film articles like this by fanboys like you. WP:AGG also says that actual "commentary should come before reporting aggregate scores" and that aggregate scores only "can complement this commentary", not contradict. You are giving a minority opinion undue weight, a bot no less (i.e.not even a quote from an actual person, but a quote from a computer program which generates a generic quote). The movie clearly not being heralded as some masterpiece. Variety even just did a retrospective on Tarantino and the sense is that critics think the movie is good but not great, and they are divided on aspects of it. By trying to loophole your way into what you want, you are clearly WP:GAMING. If you don't understand WP:UNDUE or WP:AGG then take it up with an ANI and let an admin explain it to you. Good day sir. FussbussSOhush (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This is getting dumb. Regardless of the bickering, if this movie was opening to "universal acclaim" then the press would be all over it and wouldn't stop talking about it. Critics are journalists after all. They are strangely quiet about the movie itself. They would be singing this movie's praises if that were true. I can't find a single quote in the press claiming anything close to that. Most of the press and critics are caught up in the Star Trek and the Simon Pegg feud with Tarantino, or the Pulp Fiction anniversary. There is even a question if this movie will open well at the box office. Needless to say, both of you, please keep it civil.73.95.133.103 (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Erik: outside third-party thoughts on all the above? Obviously not worth me getting flagged or arguing with a new user and IP in circles... TropicAces (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I support including "universal acclaim" from Metacritic as long as there is in-text attribution for it. This would be in line with WP:PUFFERY. We're not writing, "The film received universal acclaim." However, I would like to see the text in the lead section also appear in the "Critical reception" section, plus quotes from Esquire in the section too. That way, the combination of sources can reflect to readers varying degrees of positivity. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if you support it, or not. Or want it, or not. The rules are clear on this. An aggregator is not a valid source. It can be used to compliment a verifiable source but can not contradict thoughtful press analysis. Why? WP:UNDUE. If ten of you voted that the earth is flat because you found a loophole to game that into an article, then guess what? It don't get it. Take it up in an ANI and let them explain it to you. Be sure to cite WP:AGG.73.95.168.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If it’s “undue” then best go around every single other Wikipedia film article and remove the Metacritic summary. Like Erik said, we’re not saying “the film was universally acclaimed” we are quoting the frequently-used/respected website’s consensus. Your defense is inching closer to WP:PA than actual conversation and interpretation of the guidelines. TropicAces (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, with the WP:GAMING. Okay, lemme spell it out for you. We don't need to find a source that says "universal acclaim" literally. If this movie really is being heralded by the critics as a masterpiece, and it "has universal acclaim", then I would expect you would find an article that would make this claim. The press wouldn't be able to stop talking about it. But what is notable about this movie, what is "news worthy", isn't the praise this movie is receiving or not receiving. In fact, the press is more focused on Tarantino and his talks about retirement and his celebrity.

(skip to the bottom if you don't want me to rebut you)It's simple...if this movie is receiving "universal acclaim" then find a source that attributes that. When a movie truly has universal acclaim, then the press can't stop praising a film, and certainly an journalist would report "universal praise" in a thoughtful article saying as much with analysis to back it up. When the only source that says it is not a source at all but some random computer program that invents a quote for its website, that is not enough. It's a very bold claim to say a movie has "universal acclaim." I would expect, if this were true, then Rotten Tomatoes for also would reflect that, with a near perfect approval score close to universal praise. The movie "Get out" is a much better example of this, as that horror film became an instant classic and holds a rotten tomato score of 98%. Part of the problem of Metacritic is that it doesn't even do a full sample, which is why they often contradict each other.

Despite your sarcasm, you are unintentionally right. We should correct this I could care less if editors "respect it." Fanboys often abuse it because they hate critics and studio hacks worry that wikipedia might weaken an opening weekend if too many people think the movie stinks.

In fact, Variety and their top critic Owen Gleiberman (heralded as one of the world's best critic in an award recently) just did a thoughtful article ranking all ten Tarantino movies and lists "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" toward the bottom of the list! That is hardly "universal acclaim."

You are also being misleading and using a slippery slope fallacy. If it makes you happy, I think most of the time Metacritic gets it right and so we wouldn't have to change "most articles" because most of the time a movie is either panned, praised or received a mixed reception. But there are exceptions to the rule, and our job isn't to spin things when thoughtful analysis in the press doesn't fit the narrative by fanboys who abuse aggregators. That is why WP:AGG spells it out for you. Just because you are a diehard film fan and I'm not paying lip service to this movie you like, doesn't mean I'm engaging in a "personal attack." Because most of the time Metacritic gets it right, then there is no problem leaving it as is in most articles because it is complimenting the actual sources. But a claim is a claim even if you are hiding behind Metacritic to make it. This film is an exception to the rule, because this is just not another movie but an esoteric movie from an esoteric auteur filmmaker, and the press reflects the complexity of this situation.

If you skipped to this bottom, simply find a source that paraphrases "universal acclaim". If this movie is truly receiving universal acclaim, like "Get Out" or "Pulp Fiction" did back in the day, then you should easily find a source that backs this up, since the press wouldn't be able to stop praising and talking about the film if this were true. But if you want to game this, regardless, then take it up in an ANI and be sure to mention you think WP:AGG is wrong and try to justify your [[WP:OWN] violation. P.S. Yes, in articles were Metacritic is misused, we should fix it where we find it, but I don't think that is the case in most articles. Peace out.63.229.225.130 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGG is an essay. It says at the top, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." MOS:FILM#Critical response is the relevant guideline to consider here. That guideline is why I put the commentary from The Hollywood Reporter at the beginning of the "Critical reception" section (and especially because information in the lead section should be in the article body somewhere). Not to mention that one should not quote something without saying who it is from; it is inappropriate to quote in a vacuum. Lastly, Metacritic is a reliable source, and per WP:PUFFERY, it is appropriate in-text attribution to make. If the word "universal" is problematic, we can simply replace it with a paraphrase like "critical acclaim". Or we can even state that Metacritic adds that label as the highest of five (I think) general labels. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You are being WP:POINTy. I don’t care about your fanboy agenda or Tarantion worship. WP:AGG bases its authority on MOS:FILM#Critical response, which is sound reasoning. Wikipedia doesn’t care about what a bot like Metacritic has to say anymore than it does when a bad source claims the Earth is flat or Bigfoot is real. That is why we have WP:UNDUE, which commands that we don’t give a minority view undue weight. The only source claiming that this movie has universal acclaim is Metacritic. I have asked you to back up your claim with another source that paraphrases this claim, a reasonable request you and one other troll keep dodging. If this movie is so acclaimed as you contend that should be easy to back up. Otherwise you are WP:GAMING this article with the aggregator as your loop hole. I not alone in this position on the talk page. Just because this a bad habit that some get away with doesn’t mean we should look the other way. Find another source as back up otherwise Metacritic will be properly used in the context of the press consensus. This is not a football game where it is up or down and some score system can grade these things as win or lose and bad or good. We leave the analysis and prose to the journalists, not some web app scoreboard. What part of “aggregators are not at arbiters of critical consensus” do you not understand? 64.134.172.219 (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

In a couple of weeks we will know if this movie is a hit and if it is critically acclaimed. For now, there is a way to compromise, by saying that the Metacritic score shows an overall positive reception, which is true and doesn't violate WP:WEASEL or WP:PUFFERY.FussbussSOhush (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing in the relevant guideline MOS:FILM#Critical response that would preclude the wording that is being challenged by FussbussSOhush. As long as it is made clear that the wording is coming directly from Metacritic, we are simply citing a reliable source. Please respond with relevant text from MOS:FILM#Critical response rather than ranting or personal attacks. --SubSeven (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:AGG "review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus", and editors certainly should not be drawing their own conclusions from the stats. They provide quantitative analysis, and if you want to make qualitative claims about the reception (such as being "critically acclaimed") then such claims need to be sourced just like every other claim in the article, in accordance with WP:DUE. No where is the word "indicate" even in Metacritic, which isn't even a journalist. It's a bot on a website, like a cheap online scoreboard for movies, that comes to its unscientific, unobjective opinion based upon a small sample of 39 reviews! Compare that to Rotten Tomatoes, another aggregator, that at least uses 136 reviews; to give you an idea of how unreliable it is to rely on MC. Re-read WP:AGG. It's sound reasoning even if, yes, it's not gospel. Metacritic certainly isn't gospel, just a bad habit for some and a badly abused tactic used by some editors. According to, WP:UNDUE we would be giving this minority opinion about "universal acclaim" by a single source (a bot no less!), undue weight. So, we can dismiss it on those grounds if you don't like WP:AGG. Forgetting that for a moment, the old edit says "[Metacritic] assigned an aggregate score of 86 out of 100, which it indicated as universal acclaim." Even Metacritic doesn't go that far, never using the word "indicate." The direct quote from Metacritic is "Universal acclaim based on 39 critics."

If this movie truly is receiving "universal acclaim" then I expect it should be easy to find at least one other source, if not many, to support this bold claim. Otherwise we are engaging in WP:GAMING to loophole a POV that isn't supported by the actual consensus in the press.FussbussSOhush (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILM § Critical response, "Commentary should... be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film." Such commentary should come before reporting aggregate scores because such sources are likely to be more authoritative and to provide descriptive prose. FussbussSOhush (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Metacritic vs. Consensus in the Press

Since the essay from WP:AGG is being treated as trivial by some (it's not, the reasoning is sound) I've been told to refer to MOS:FILM#Critical response.

Fine then...here is what MOS:FILM#Critical response has to say about "aggregators" like Metacritic.

• "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. Avoid weasel words."
• "If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." (e.g no where does Metacritic claims that it is indicative of anything)
• Detailed commentary from reliable sources regarding the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) is encouraged. Individual critics can also be referenced to detail various aspects of the film. Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, though reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited. The use of print reviews is encouraged; these will be more reliable in retrospect."
• Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews; caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates. Also, the data from these websites is potentially less accurate for films released before the websites existed; therefore, care should be exercised in determining whether to refer to them.
• "avoid giving [Metacritic] undue weight" (e.g. "As of May 2015, 50% of the 68 reviews compiled by Rotten Tomatoes are positive, and have an average score of 5.2 out of 10."). To maintain a neutral point of view... "best judgment should again be used."
• "Use secondary sources to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today."

I was careful not to use my own words here. Letting the rules and wikipedia core values speak (reasonably and authoritatively) for themselves. FussbussSOhush (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Nothing about including Metacritic’s finding in its own line of the article is undue, oversight or excessive. However you describing its score as “overall positive” when it describes it as “universal acclaim” just may be. TropicAces (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

If that were true, then you should easily be able to find a primary source other than the Metacritic bot to back up your bold assertion. If this movie is receiving "universal acclaim" that shouldn't be hard as the press wouldn't able to stop talking about this movie. For now, you are purposely ignoring the rest and being WP:POINTy so you can WP:GAMING. We are finished here.FussbussSOhush (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you even reading this stuff? You think this is applicable -- "caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates" -- to a movie that premiered TWO MONTHS AGO? --SubSeven (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC about Including Metacritic consensus

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

---

Should the “universal acclaim” that Metacritic assigns Once Upon a Time in Hollywood be noted like it is in most other film articles or no? TropicAces (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as previously noted in sections above by my myself and @Erik: we are not stating anywhere else in the article the film was critically acclaimed or that even “Metacritic claimed the film was universally acclaimed”, we are reporting the word-for-word findings of a respected website and letting it literally speak for itself. The reception summary (at the time of writing this) is “an overall positive view” and is cited by a Hollywood Reporter article. I find nothing undue, weighty or out of the norm about including the findings Metacritic published. TropicAces (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)tropicAces
• Support because referencing Metacritic and using in-text attribution to identify how it assesses the film is not inherently problematic. We are saying that the website assesses it to have "universal acclaim", not directly that it has universal acclaim. Nobody actually believes that saying "universal" means every single person out there loves the film. There will always be opportunity to scrutinize quotes from a source like Metacritic or any periodical. Some periodicals simply reference an aggregator, some periodicals may only look at a handful of reviews before drawing a very broad conclusion (especially when we know that there can be hundreds of reviews not actually read), or the sources of such review summaries are mainly limited to the United States when a film has a worldwide release. Having Metacritic with this quote does not (nor should it ever) preclude referencing other sources. We can reference sources that summarized critical reception at this film's Cannes release, and we can add references about its critical reception this weekend (though Cannes reviews may be mixed in with newer reviews). None of this is perfect, and if there are visibly varying degrees of positivity, then we can combine it all for readers to have their own takeaway. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as I said before in a talk with User:FussbussSOhush, "universal acclaim" is the assignment that Metacritic gave to the film, so I don't see why it should be omitted. It's not like we are writing: "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood received universal acclaim". We are just saying that the score assigned by Metacritic indicates "universal acclaim". --Mazewaxie 16:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Remove WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override core policies. The reasoning has been presented to death here so I don't need to get into all that. MOS:FILM#Critical response makes it clear why you are wrong. But I can't do anything about your sociopathic logic. You get what it is saying, you simple don't care. Got it. You are simply engaging in WP:GAMING. While you are at it, with that absurd logic, I suppose anything goes and if I get a vote to include bad sources proving BigFoot is real and Elvis is alive, this is how you would do it. Oh, yeah, we can't. WP:UNDUE says we can't do it and MOS:FILM#Critical response explains why. Again, if this movie is truly receiving "universal acclaim" and this bold claim is so evident, then the press wouldn't be able to stop talking about it and it should easy be able to find a find another primary source to back it up Metacritic with attribution, or even a secondary source. That y'all keep evading this simple request per core policy speaks volumes. An RFC isn't the proper remedy, an ANI is. That is, if your clique can't accept the rules and need someone to explain it to you.73.95.134.180 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Simple guys. When I get the time, I will do a proper ANI when I get the time. Will present the rules as I stated them above and are clear on this. Will bring it to the attention of admins how often this is abused, listing the articles I can find (e.g. there are several). And they will enforce this, with a suggestion that a project be created to clean up articles gamed in this way. If you guys strongly believe a computer scoreboard operated by a bot, not a real human, should override legitimate sources (you know, real journalists) then you can make your peace there. How is that working for you? Finished here. Offered a "compromise" on the article which is more than sufficient, and more than this issue even deserves.FussbussSOhush (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Perfect, let’s bring this to an Admin/third-party’s attention, have them rule on a decision and be done with it. TropicAces (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

P.S. This was also addressed above by another editor against abusing aggregators in this way, and so it isn't lost, I've included their thoughts here: Editor Betty Logan Says "Per WP:AGG "review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus", and editors certainly should not be drawing their own conclusions from the stats. They provide quantitative analysis, and if you want to make qualitative claims about the reception (such as being "critically acclaimed") then such claims need to be sourced just like every other claim in the article, in accordance with WP:DUE."FussbussSOhush (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Does 73.95.134.180's opinion count? It's an IP that only edited today and only on this article. --Mazewaxie 19:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Yes, because the RFC is simply asking for feedback. The RFC clearly says "An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion". This is no formal vote for a consensus. RE-read how RFCs work. It is to generate debate. Even so, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override core policies. For example, you can't take a vote to (forcibly) include sources claiming the Earth is flat. There are limits and that's why we have WP:UNDUE. The appropriate remedy is an ANI, where administration will enforce existing policy. I will post it here when I have time, and you can appeal the rule makers to change the rules so that contradictory information from aggregators can be include. But I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.FussbussSOhush (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Yes but it looks strange to me that a random IP comes here to take part on this specific discussion, showing off a great knowledge about Wikipedia. That's just my opinion though. --Mazewaxie 19:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment What's weird about it? The page is locked. The semi-protection template even lists that as a primary reason, IP abuse. That's what the talk is for. Opinion noted.FussbussSOhush (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support as no compelling reason has been given to make an exception in this case. FussbussSOhush seems to have more of a general aversion to citing aggregators which is something that would be more appropriately deliberated by WP:FILM. --SubSeven (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per the reasonings by TropicAces and Erik. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Quoting

FussbussSOhush, can you highlight what part of WP:LEAD overrides MOS:QUOTEPOV? I am not seeing what you are referencing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:LEAD clearly states we include what is notable. It is not notable that The Hollywood Reporter made this assertion, and you IMHO seek to water down the lead by singling that out. That The Hollywood Reporter is explicitly mentioned in the critical section is sufficient to establish them as the source. P.S. As you are not playing nice elsewhere, I am limiting my engagement with you, especially considering you are engaging in WP:CANVASSING, something the other editor had enough sense to back down on. The rules are there, you can figure it out. I'm done.FussbussSOhush (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Cast

The repeated additions of several non notable names and now a dog are beyond disruptive and irritating. There needs to be a crackdown on the names being added into this section and clearly I’m going ignored by @Samurai Kung fu Cowboy:. This needs to stop. Rusted AutoParts 02:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The dog has been removed. I'm not ignoring you. I feel we got off on the wrong foot. However, you continuously removed information that had been verified about notable actors, while also allowing false cast information to stay without doing anything about it. Also you did nothing about false plot information that was up for months, so I'm not sure what you're real issue is. I apologize if I was rude and uncivil. I hope as we move forward that we can be more transparent with each other. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

On a side note, since we have "Susan 'Sadie' Atkins" in the list, what about adding "Gypsy" to "Catherine Share"? They called her Gypsy in the movie, and I had no idea who that was in the list until I clicked on it. For consistency's sake at least, either add Gypsy or remove Sadie. Same goes for Steve "Clem" Grogan.

Plot

I just came back from seeing the movie. Are any of you sure that Cliff dies in the end? Because that’s not what I saw. calverthall 02:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, Cliff doesn't die here; the previous plot summary turned out to be false. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification calverthall 14:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Plot summary length

So, I'm thinking about something regarding the plot's length. While I agree with TropicAces's changes to the plot, it's currently below the 400-700 word guideline per WP:FILMPLOT. What's the best possible way to keep the length within those guidelines? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Stylized title

As of this writing, the article presents the film as having the stylized title Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood. While there are posters that put the ellipsis after the "in", the more common style used in the film's titles and on IMDb is Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood, with a standalone ellipsis after "Time". Should both variations be listed in the article? oobug^talk_contrib 17:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m not really offering a solution here, I think listing a (needlessly) long title three times in one line would be excessive, but at the end of the film the title card appears as Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood, for what it’s worth. Appears to be appearing all three ways (and is credited as such by the BBFC), which complicates things... guess my vote would actually be just leaving as: "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a 2019..." and not even list the marketing stylization. TropicAces (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

Any way to find out what title the film is copyrighted as, and run with that?Robbmonster (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Vietnam Veteran?

The cast list says that Brad Pitt's character is a Vietnam Veteran. But the movie is set in 1969, and he and Rick Dalton have been working together for nine years. So the movie says he's a war hero, but it never says Vietnam. 64.30.97.172 (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I for one would agree with your assessment. The citation given is a list of the real-life people featured in the story and the actors who play them in the film. Brad Pitt's character is NOT featured in this rundown, and nowhere is it specified he is a 'Vietnam veteran'. The word 'Vietnam' - of any variation thereof - appears nowhere in the article. I'm changing the article to say 'war veteran' until someone can provide conclusive proof as to which war it was.Robbmonster (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Plot Summary: Pronoun consistency

Shouldn't the characters be referred to by full name in first mention and subsequently by first or last name consistently? It seems that if last names are going to be used for characters in subsequent mentions it should apply to both sexes. It is confusing because currently female characters are referred to by last name and male by first names or by both. Mballen (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Julia Butters character Meryl Streep

Even though Trudy Fraser is loosely based on Meryl Streep, it is not necessary to include that information. However, what makes no sense to me is putting up a sentence that says she wasn't based on Meryl Streep. Even if that was true, it's distracting and unnecessary. At least three editors have attempted to remove it and now I'm getting messages about editing wars. This is ridiculous. I don't see why anyone would want to list actors, characters weren't influenced by. The ironic thing in this case is that the character is loosely based on Meryl Streep. I feel this is some weird, misplaced fight on the part of @Trillfendi. I'm curious how others feel. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

SHE IS NOT PLAYING ANYTHING RELATED TO MERYL STREEP. NOT INSPIRED BY HER WHATSOEVER. Get it through your skull. Use reading comprehension. DiCaprio said she had the acting talent on the calibre of a young Meryl Streep and many reports (example, Entertainment Tonight) took his quote of context to mean that she was actually playing Meryl Streep or that the character was inspired by her which is was not being that she’s a 10 year old and Meryl Streep would’ve been 20 and didn’t start her professional career until a decade later. What was previously there had to be removed (which I did yesterday). That’s why clarification is required, with citations, because people even tried putting it on Miss Butters’s own article. You’re new here, and you haven’t expanded your horizons beyond this article; blatantly you don’t know what goes on around here. And if you want to @ someone, ping them. Trillfendi (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, unless enough reliable sources make a big deal out of it, stating that some rumour isn't true is rather redundant. DonQuixote (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This is what I looked like before I removed it when I came across it. So clearly, they had to have gotten from somewhere. Trillfendi (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The course of action in situations like this, apart from editing it out, is to add an inline note for editors (as opposed to readers) or, if it gets that far, page-protection. DonQuixote (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The page is currently semi-protected, but unfortunately that doesn’t weed out editors (if you could even call them that) who are auto-confirmed because they just keep coming back yet don’t know what they’re doing and don’t know policies; don’t even know why they’d get a warning about it. If someone really wanted to have it removed that badly, they’d know what to do. At any rate, people come here for information and that information must be accurate and verifiable. So if people continue putting lies, I’ll continue debunking. There are already people who believe things about this “just because Wikipedia said it”. Trillfendi (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

For the moment, we can just be vigilant, but if it gets worse, we can change the level of protection. If you think it's a problem now, feel free to start a petition at WP:Page protection. For now, I'll just add an inline note and hide the refs. DonQuixote (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That sounds best. She was loosely influenced by Mary Streep though, not based on her, as the idea of who Meryl Streep would be as an actress at that age. I understand the decades don't line up, but nonetheless there was some inspiration there. I have no official citations or references to back that up, so I'm not advocating that information be on the page. It just makes no sense to say she wasn't based or influenced on her. I think the solution that was reached is best and I encourage Trillfendi to take a deep breath. I don't know how to ping or I would. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course you don’t know how to ping, you’ve only been here editing one article, what, 15 days? Now once again, absolutely nothing, not one iota, of her performance was actually based on Meryl Streep who didn’t have a professional credit until 1977. Do you get it now? The girl is only 10 and didn’t even know who Tarantino was before this movie. Personally, I wouldn’t put it past her to not have watched the Dame either; but even if she did she already said it had no reference to this role. It was simply a compliment from Leonardo DiCaprio. A compliment means saying something nice about somebody. It doesn’t mean their role is based on the person they admire. It’s not even worth back and forth about because it’s simply his professional opinion. Tarantino wrote her character specifically for her as he’s a fan of her work on American Housewife. This is why it has to be delineated because people, like yourself, will conflating it despite multiple sources refuting the misconstruction. The article even had her listed as playing Meryl Streep, for two weeks! No wonder no one considers Wikipedia a reliable source. So no, if I have to keep crusading against fake news I will. (And I don’t care who thinks I’m delightful or not. 🤗)Trillfendi (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Julia Butters did not write the script. The character was not written specifically for her and again, the idea for the character was influenced by the idea of who Meryl Streep would have been as an actress at that age had she been acting, even though she wouldn't have been that age at the time. Leo was aware of this. While that part of the script was being written and specifically the character of Trudi, American Houswife was on the television and that's when the idea to cast Julia was born. From there Trudi was written with Julia on mind. However, I understand that you're not aware of any of this and that's ok. Clearly that information will not be on the page which is fine. But you are being very adamant about something that you don't have all the information about. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Controversy mentioned in Press twice over "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood"

Not one but two articles from major press outlets, and several prominent reviewers in their twitters, mention a "wikipedia controversy" over the "edit warring" over Tarantino's "Once Upon a Time In Hollywood" and the ending spoilers. One article actually said they liked the "wikipedia false ending" better than the movie's twist ending. Pretty groovy, huh? Should we include a section about this?73.95.132.126 (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO no for now, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROPORTION. Talkpage template is enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)