Talk:No Country for Old Men

Plot summary

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

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

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

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

Too Long!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split or Trim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please tell me all about my nature.

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

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

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

Dear RingCinema: This is 86.53.69.150. Of any unsigned posts above, I wrote only the ones beginning "Dear Gareth: Where nobody is discourteous enough...", "Dear RingCinema: Do you think this film is different from others, please; if so, why?" and "Please tell me all about my nature." I do not know why the bot did not auto-sign these for me; as I told Gareth, I did not hack it. It would be great if you were willing to answer the question I addressed to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The fact of the matter is, this page is overlong. Unnecessarily long. So long that it's become a laughing stock on other websites (cracked.com listed it as 5th most needlessly-long Wikipedia page). And just skimming through it, I see a large amount of fat that could be trimmed. (Ex. unneeded snippits from reviews throughout the article when they should be kept in the reception area, a painfully long "Style" section full of unnecessary info, a page-long "Genre" section that doesn't need to be more than a paragraph, let alone exist, the entire "Themes and Alalysis" section being bloated and over-detailed, way too much detail in the release section, etc. And that's all just in a quick skimming, without reading the whole thing) I would love to edit this, but I don't feel like putting the effort into editing it down, because it's clear that a lot of over-dedicated fans/fanboys built this page, and will do away with any revisions or trimming. This page is just too bloated and has too much unneeded information. I did a quick copy-and-paste of this article in Word, and it's nearly 30 pages of size-10 font. (Or nearly 40 pages at size 12 font) Come on, that's too long. It's just common sense. This article could be halved easily and still be a competent, compelling, informative read. As it is now, it smells of fanboy-itis. I hate to say it, but it's clearly a passion project for an obsessive group of fans. Nobody wants to read a 40-page entry on a film. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That the page is too long is not a new contribution to the discussion. There is a question about what to do about it without losing something of value. I'm not sure I agree that analysis or criticism or reception ought to be superficial or smack of original research, and I don't think readers come to a reference to read an article in its entirety anyway. There is a proposal to split the article into two that has some merit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"Losing something of value"? Holy crap, why don't we just include the Constitution and the Magna Carta in it to, along with the Bible and the Quran. After all, we wouldn't want to "lose anything of value". Seriously, the people in this thread need to get over themselves. It's a movie. It's not the friggin' Bill of Rights. Somehow, other movies manage to get along just fine without having 30,000 word entries. Were this article being managed by an editor, instead of an obsessive child, it could easily be trimmed down to a reasonable length, and with great benefit to the entry itself. That the thing that you people just aren't getting. We're not suggesting that it be edited because we think the Internet is running out of room. We're suggesting it be edited because it's a widely accepted fact that an article that's TOO long ceases to have any value. It just becomes a huge masturbatory exercise in silliness.174.23.178.76 (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on guys, trim the article, this is insane...

I trimmed some of the fat from this article, and as expected, it was immediately reverted. I undid the revision, but I expect it to go back to it's original bloated state within hours. I copied and pasted this article into a Word document, and it was nearly 40 pages of size-12 font. (Plus the linked "Themes and Analysis" page, which is just as long.)

Guys, this article is ridiculous. It is loaded with unneeded information, redundant overuse of critical reactions strewn throughout (why not just post them in the "reception" section?), flowery-and-overly-wordy text throughout, a link to another just-as-long article on the film as mentioned above plus a second link to an article on accolades, overlong quotes, over-detailed descriptions, etc.

I know this will be endlessly debated, because things technically follow Wikipedia policy, but there's something to be said for common-sense. This article, by common sense standards, it too long, too detailed, and feels too much like a self-indulgent group of fanboys gone out of control. If your article is being made fun of on other websites for how needlessly-overlong it is (which is happening with this), then there's a problem. Nobody who uses wikipedia, other than obsessive fans who edit articles, wants to read 100 pages split up between several articles on a film like this. I tried to read through this page before, and I could barely find the information I wanted because it was so long. (This was before I realized how out-of-hand it was when it was referenced on Cracked.com.)

Guys, be realistic. Stop hiding behind wikipedia policies to justify this article. It's too long by any stretch of the imagination. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think RepublicanJacobite is a fanboy, though. He has a different perspective. What do you think of splitting it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, the Reception and Criticism sections need a serious trim as well. There is no reason for either of those sections to reproduce quotes from EIGHT DIFFERENT reviews. Some of these are full paragraphs. Those should ALL Be removed and replaced with one Paragraph summing up what those reviewers said.DemonRin (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear 'Maximum Madness' and 'Demon': You have drawn my attention to other ridiculously long film articles on Wiki. Check out this (drum rolls) the Wikipage for 2001: A Space Odyssey ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film), is 25,000 words long plus an unneeded three sub-articles about 'differences from the novel (who cares!)', 'interpretations (I'm starting to yawn!)' and 'score (it's currently in the top 10!)'. These three articles amount to about 9,000 words. So the total is 34,000 words (thirty four thousand words!). That amounts in Word software to just short of 70 pages (seventy!) LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: THIS IS INSANE. Imagine the following: (Honey, can you please tell me what awards 2001 won?, Sure Sweetie just give me six hours because I have to spend 5 minutes reading each of the 70 pages) Is this what Wiki should be? Shouldn't it be the most info with as few words as possible. We need to start trimming '2001' as soon as we finish trimming 'No Country for Old Men'. Wiki is being hijacked. It's our job to put that to an end. --NewtonSt (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you think is being hijacked? More complicated subjects have more complicated articles. Sounds normal to me. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comments and those of RepublicanJacobite make sense. It's a matter of perspective. I think the Wiki administration did not set rules for how long an article should be and whether articles should be to the point or not. But maybe they don't have to set all the rules. They set some, and leave space for freedom. They block against vandalism/racism and edit wars. Wiki is by the people and for the people. WE set the rules by consensus, for remaining matters that Wiki adminsitration doesn't want to interfere in. Answering your question, I guess what could have been hijacked is the freedom that Wiki provides us with. Therefore, I have decided not to do any trimming until a consensus is reached, if any, stating that trimming is necessary. NewtonSt (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

MMS, your claim that other editors are "hiding behind Wikipedia policies" is just proof, though none is needed, that your edits have nothing to do with policy. I will say again, the opinion of other websites, like cracked.com, that some Wikipedia articles are too long, is absolutely irrelevant. Until you can make a reasoned argument, based on policy, about the length of these articles, and not merely your opinion that they are too long, stop editing the article. And, per WP:BRD, when you make a bold edit, and are reverted, you are not supposed to revert back, you are supposed to use the talk page to build a consensus, which you certainly have not done. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, you're proving my point about hiding behind policy by using it to justify reverting edits and then blaming me. (What choice do I have, you're going to whine and cower behind policy?) The fact of the matter is, as I stated before, I myself had trouble locating information in this article in the past. It's extremely crowded and full of unneeded quotes and content that makes it near impossible to locate specific info. I let go of it, but then was reminded when I saw it referenced elsewhere (such as in the Cracked article). Hence, I decided it wasn't just me that was having problems with the fact that there about 100 pages of info on this film, it was a larger group. Hide behind policies and ignore common sense all you want, the fact of the matter is, this is a poor article that's darned-near impossible to navigate when looking for information, and a significant amount of the information is unneeded and adds nothing. It's all fluff. Plain and simple. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's an obsessive love letter to the film. I don't understand why some of the fat couldn't be trimmed. Ex. Why there needs to be 8 pages on the Themes and Analysis in this article, when there is an entire other page worth of material on the Themes/Analysis that is close to 40 pages long? Or why there has to be countless excerts from critical reviews messily thrown throughout the article under just about every section, when they could just be in the Reception section? Stuff like that makes this page extremely difficult to navigate and basically impossible find specific information.MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

Reading this article, I've noticed that there are whole paragraphs of just people being quoted. I'd wager this almost borders on copyvio, where it's simply a copy and paste job of numerous other people's comments. The encyclopedic thing to do (and what would help in cutting this article down) is to summarize and paraphrase. A lot of the quotes are superfluous. One also has to consider whether absolutely everything that has ever been said about this film, really needs to be reproduced here. Kusonaga (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude, half the article needs to be trimmed. This article is about 40 pages long in Word, plus there are links to two other articles about the film (Analysis, Accolades, etc) that bring the total amount to about 100 pages in Word worth of material. But it's not going to happen. The obsessive users who maintain this page have repeatedly reverted any positive editing and trimming, even though this article is laughable, bloated, impossible to navigate and barely recognizable as an encyclopedia entry. And technically, it's supported by policy (as there seems to be no policy against unnecessarily long and difficult-to-navigate pages), so they can get away with making it a dreadful page, even though common sense would dictate that this is a foul article. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a different take on it. The excessive quotations are a phase the article will pass through as summaries are substituted for the longer selections. This is going to take some effort. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

But changes of the sort you advocate get reverted. As the Cracked critique points out, the entries for Godfather, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca and Lawrence of Arabia combined do not sum to the length of this entry. MMS is entirely right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that any trimming gets reverted within hours, despite the fact that this article is a complete chore to read, and contains a lot of unneeded info. (Ex. pages and pages of critical quotes in every single section, when they should be in the reception section.) MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Article is Too Long

Congratulations Wikipedia Editors and contributors to this page, we got featured on Cracked. http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-6-most-needlessly-detailed-wikipedia-entries/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage

It's certainly something I noticed and wanted to get around too, the themes section in particular is so long, and the reception section which is excessively laden with quotes.--JTBX (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The amount of words in this article is too damn high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues A page of about 30kB to 50kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. At 50kB and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style - see WP:SIZERULE for "a rule of thumb". Comprehension of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%.

There is no rational reason why this article needs to be so long.

--Khimaris (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

in order to be fair, please judge the length of '2001: A Space Odyssey'. Why some film articles are allowed to be long and some don't. Plus, if a cracked.com biased editor tells us that we need to kill ourselves, then we should go ahead and jump in front of a train? The question is: how many words are allowed per film article, and by Wiki administration rules? The answer should be applied on ALL articles. --NewtonSt (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that you're comparing this film to "2001: A Space Odyssey" explains everything that needs to be explained about what's wrong with the people editing this article.174.23.178.76 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Then we need to reach consensus on how great this film is compared to 2001, say nine times less and then trim the page to be nine times less than what it is now. The Wiki administration is not telling us how many words are allowed per film per importance per legacy per excellence then we need to agree on a limit of words per article. And by the way, 2001 is not even a featured Wiki page yet, so before anybody complains about lengthy Wiki pages find a lengthy wiki page for a significant film like 2001 and being a featured article and set it as standard. Otherwise, all what we are talking about are theories and personal taste statements, including myself. So I'll zip it for now and go out and search for a reliable standard to compare against. --NewtonSt (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I FOUND IT! Casablanca is featured article and is less than half size of No Country. And wait, No Country is 15 times less important than Casablanca so we need to trim No Country by 30 times ... So we're left with probably the film title and the name of the leading actor, if you need to know who produced the film then go ahead and check the film's official page. But I'm not gonna trim it, I need to get over my anger that my talk page colleagues are punishing themselves with guilt because of a biased editor at cracked.com (voted as the most reliable web page since Wikipedia). --NewtonSt (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This whole debate is infantile. The fact of the matter is, there is an extreme amount of text in this article, included a lot of unneeded information. And it's poorly organized. It's near impossible to find any specific information without spending an hour digging through each section with a fine-tooth comb. It should be trimmed, because it doesn't read like an Encyclopedia entry, it reads like a thesis written by an obsessive fan. (And in fact, this article could easily be halved by just eliminating the flowery words, unneeded snippets of reviews split up throughout, etc) I have no problems with long articles, the problem is when an article is unnecessarily long and it's confusing and hard to read, which is what's happened here. Unfortunately, there are some obsessed editors who are going to make it very hard to resolve this issue, because they let Wikipedia policy blind their common sense, and revert any trimming. This article is too long. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear MaximumMadness, I feel that you have all the true intentions to make this article better. But when it comes to "extreme amount of text" and "near impossible to find any specific information without spending an hour digging through each section with a fine-tooth comb" please visit the Wiki page of Michael Jackson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson, and test these two rules you just mentioned above. And MJ's page is a FEATURED ARTICLE! His page has 225 kb and No Country has 187 kb (83%). His page has 14 sub-articles with 650 kb while No Country has 2 sub-articles with 200kb. TOTALS: MJ=875 kb, No Country=378 kb. SO No Country is 43% the size of MJ. And please don't tell me that "you can't compare" MJ to NC. "You can't compare" NC (which won the Oscars and a BAFTA but is a 'sick, violent' film made by filmmakers with 'obsessive fans' following) to MJ (who is a legend but also happens by some perspectives to be a 'sick possible-child molester (not proved)' and has 'obsessive fans' who contributed to make his page this LONG). Unless the Wiki administration doesn't establish a supreme-court type of decision making, then we can go forever, unloading our egos and POVs. --NewtonSt (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is not a crisis here, just an article that is getting attention. That's how this site operates, I believe. Nothing infantile about it, so far. I don't agree that the article is confusing; the section headings are accurate; the selections are basically germane to the heading. If editors are able to reduce the length by use of summary, that is likely to be a good change. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well said. I'll go with that. --NewtonSt (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why has this article become someone's English lit. thesis? It is completely out of bounds. Never mind that the content strays off into all sorts arguable territory based around subjective opinions by numerous reviewers on race and ethnicity and what not. This should be an encyclopedia, not a research essay or a full blown literature review. If someone has written a paper on this then they can source it, but on wikipedia it needs to be within a useful and graspable size. The debate that is going on here in the talk page over the article's length is raging now 2012 - however this movie was released in 2007! It is about time a normal article existed. Please delete most of the article, or better simply delete the whole darn thing and create a new one based on a standard wiki film entry format, please. --Lexxus2010 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)