Jump to content

Talk:List of Western films of the 2000s

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australia (2008 film)

[edit]

Not every film with horsemen and cattle is a "western". Australia is about Outback Australia and a threatened Japanese invasion in the 1940s. Repeating my edit comment: "Outback Western" not included at Western (genre) as a subgenre. The word "Western" is never mentioned in Australia (2008 film), where it is described: "Australia is a 2008 epic historical romance film directed by Baz Luhrmann ...." and the film is not included in any "western" film category. 202.81.242.188 (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going to agree. Looking at sources:
  • The Guardian refers to it as a " wartime romance epic" [1]"
  • new york times refers to it as an "epic" source
  • new york daily news refers to it as an "Epic romance" [2]
  • allmovie calls it an "epic", "adventure", "romantic epic" and "historical drama". source.
I'm not finding anything for Western yet. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Andrzejbanas. The anon is incorrectly assuming that the word 'western' needs to be mentioned in the film to be classified as such. Following that reasoning, Phineas and Ferb is a science program and the Batman trilogy is an advanced documentary about a slew of psychoses. Instead of what they are. I've added a few references (1, 2) to the Australia article culled in a simple search through Rotten Tomatoes wherein at least two reviewers (granted, I didn't spend a lot of time, but there are over a dozen reviews; I am guessing the comparisons to western genre films keeps coming up) consider it to contain the tropes of other westerns. In fact, I'd bet a couple fancy craft beers that at least four other references to the western genre come up in reviews for Australia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I "assumed" nothing of the kind. My reasoning was clearly stated in my comment, referring the the WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE about the film, not the film itself -- as indicated by the blue link to said article and the words quoted from said article. That was before you got to it, of course. 202.81.242.188 (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Westerns are called Westerns for a reason; as indicated in Western (genre), "Westerns are devoted to telling stories set primarily in the latter half of the 19th century in the American Old West, hence the name." Last time I checked, Australia isn't part of the good old U S of A so calling any movie about Australia a western is quite silly. "Western-like" is about as close as you can get, although even that is a stretch - No cowboys, injuns, wagon-trains, sherriffs, jails, hoose-gows or John Wayne. That a couple of American reviewers are really, really, really bad at geography doesn't change that. I have to agree with the IP: "Not every film with horsemen and cattle is a "western"". --AussieLegend (✉) 09:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Describing any movie about Australia or Australian subjects as a "Western" is ridiculous. The Western is a particular genre of stories about the "old West" of the USA. Australia is not even close. It does not matter if your four other reviews all call the movie a western, the ignorance of these reviewers is no excuse for pushing this incredible stupidity into Wikipedia. There must be thousands (at least) of reviews of this movie and the best you can come up with is, perhaps, a few to support your outrageous proposition. Of the two references that you actually added to the page, I should point out, one of them does not in actual fact describe Australia as a western. Rather, it compares Luhrmann's treatment of the country with the treatment of the USA by John Ford in Westerns. In other words, he is comparing Australia with westerns, not saying it is one, the opposite of your contention in fact. - Nick Thorne talk 10:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I by default respect the opinions of my fellow editors, I would like to point out that at no point does their opinion override reliably-cited, notable references - qualities which their own opinions do not share. I would also like to point out that I did in fact state that I found the two citations supporting those comments in less than two minutes, and that I was fairly certain that more could be found. Easily. (1, 2, 3, 4)

AussieLegend, I would point out that your own repeating of the contains the caveat - the operative word here is "primarily." Quigley Down Under immediately comes to mind, as does Kangaroo, The Man from Snowy River and Ned Kelly. There are also some South African and Argentinian examples, but I think you get the idea. By claiming an arbitrarily narrow definition of 'western' - which only encompasses westerns made about or in the US (including - oddly-enough - Italian-made films shot in Italy, called Spaghetti Westerns), you are excluding other, equally important parts of the genre: the Meat pie Western, for instance. As an aside, this is why we use citable references in place of our own evaluative statements. Citations can be considered ridiculous, but they are from notable, referential sources. Our own opinions are not noteworthy or citable, and are therefore unusable in an article. Just because we don't like what the cite says does not mean we get to disregard it, especially if its exclusion results in a lesser article. Nick, I disagree heartily with your contention that the citation discussing Luhrmann's comparison is the "opposite" of a western, but that is part of the reason we present the information neutrally, so that the reader can make up their own mind. We aren't here to present out opinions. We present the info objectively. Period. It's one of the Five Pillars, actually. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The opening of this article reads "A list of Western films released in the 2000s (decade)." Western film redirects to Western (genre)#Film, the opening of which says "The American Film Institute defines western films as those "set in the American West that embod[y] the spirit, the struggle and the demise of the new frontier."[3]" The American Film Institute would seem to be fairly authoritative and it doesn't use "primarily", its definition says the film has to be set in the American west. True, to reviewers with poor geography that could mean China, but I'm pretty sure the AFI means the north American continent. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those other citations mentioned as well also seem to be self-published website. They are not nearly as prominent as the New York Times or Allmovie. They seem to be personal or fan sites. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address the AFI comment shortly, but I'd point out, Andrzejbanas, that precisely none of these sites appear to have been questioned as non-reliable, according to the RS Noticeboard. Indeed, one of the sites, WhatCulture, appears to have been used as a reference in at almost 100 different articles a. If a source is reliable, it belongs. And its funny that you should mention the NYT; the Australian film, Kangaroo (wikified above), was explicitly noted for its "western groove"b, a sentiment shared by reviewers from MovieMetc
Now, on to the meat of the issue. The claim is that the AFI defines the western as only taking place in America. Apart from the obvious nonsense ('what? the American Film Institute says that westerns are only those set in the American West?) of that definition, it strikes me as incredibly Amerocentric, as do some of the opinions being offered in defense of excluding films clearly within the western genre, like Quigley Down Under and Kangaroo, simply because they were set outside the borders of the US. Note that I am not counting westerns made outside the US, as that would remove great swathes of spaghetti westerns from the genre.
I checked with both NFI at the Fairbanks Center and Margaret Herrick Library for the Academy, but b oth are closed on Wednesday. This can wait for a day, i guess. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absence of discussion at RSN doesn't mean a site is reliable. There are a lot of sites that are used in lots of articles and aren't RS. Toonzone.net forums are currently linked 155 times, and fan forums are definitely not RS. We weed out sites as we find them. Of course the AFI definition is Amerocentric; that's because western specifically refers to the U.S. old west. Where do you think "western" came from? It came from U.S. films about the old west starring American actors like John Wayne about cattle rustlers, outlaws like Billy the Kid, wagon trains, fights with "injuns" and so on, so of course it has a distinct American slant. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry; it was claimed that at least one of the citations wasn't reliable. I have successfully challenged that notion in that Wikipedia currently doesn't consider them such, so classifying them as such - even in an offhand manner - carries no weight in this discussion. As for the rest of your comparisons presupposes your point, which in itself is incomplete and incorrect. While most westerns encompass the American 19th century, not all westerns share this descriptor.
Look at the article you are arguing about, More importantly, look at the sub-genre/notes column. While most are American made and about the American West, a great many aren't: The Proposition, Tears of the Black Tiger, The Tracker, and a host of others are classified as westerns, but precisely none of them take place in the American West.
Some food for thought:

While the Western is now widely recognised as a key skirmish point in the battleground of American cultural politics, the role played by the Western in the political discourse of other cultures is perhaps less well known. Given its wide-open spaces and its history of ethnic cleansing, it is hardly surprising to note that Australia has a long history of flirtation with the Western genre. Referred to locally as Meat Pie Westerns (a play on the Italian-made Spaghetti Westerns), films such as Lesley Selander’s The Kangaroo Kid (1950) and George T. Miller’s The Man From Snowy River (1982) take elements of the Western genre and modify them to fit in with popular perceptions of life in the Australian Outback. The director Simon Wincer has even gone so far as to explicitly address the similarities between the American West and the Australian Outback by first sending a cowboy to Australia in Quigley Down Under (1990) and then sending a bushranger to America in Lightning Jack (1994). However, while the Meat Pie Western has a history almost as long as that of the traditional Western, it is only comparatively recently that we have begun to see the emergence of Revisionist Meat Pie Westerns that challenge Australian history in the same way that the original Revisionists challenged America.

Jonathan McCalmont, writing for Ruthless Culture.[4]

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't successfully challenged the notion that Wikipedia currently doesn't regard the sites as reliable. As I said, lack of discussion at RSN doesn't mean a site is regarded as reliable. Reliability is determined by how sites meet or don't meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. As for your "food for thought", perhaps you haven't read it thoroughly: "Referred to locally as Meat Pie Westerns (a play on the Italian-made Spaghetti Westerns), films such as Lesley Selander’s The Kangaroo Kid (1950) and George T. Miller’s The Man From Snowy River (1982) take elements of the Western genre and modify them to fit in with popular perceptions of life in the Australian Outback." The key here is "take elements of the Western genre and modify them" so no, they're not actually westerns, they're western-like at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Err, according to the definition of westerns, then, most of the side genre films that do not fit your (and I repeat, this appears to be your unreferenceable opinion alone) narrow view of a western would rather quickly depopulate the list that this article talks about. So yeah, they are still Westerns, just not a John Wayne one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether you're replying to the immediately preceding post or one much earlier (your indenting makes it unclear) but, assuming you're referring to the immediately preceding post, my "opinion" is certainly not unreferenced. I provided links to the redirect, Western (genre) and the AFI definition. Your own quote makes it clear that Australian Westerns "take elements of the Western genre and modify them". What more do you want? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I might point out that Ruthless Culture is a blog and so fails WP:RS. Like it or not, the fact that you may be able to find a handful of sources to support your proposition when the overwhelming number of sources do not lends you position no credibility. By seeking to redefine the western genre to include films that are clearly outside its intended ambit you render the term meaningless. - Nick Thorne talk 04:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was explicitly qualified as "food for thought", Nick, and certainly not something i was seeking to add to the article. That oversight aside, what youa re telling me is that no matter what references I provide, you are not planning on changing your opinions on the subject. Well then, I guess we find ourselves at an impasse. There are examples in this very article you are openly saying don't belong here, as they are not "true" westerns. While that seems mind-bogglingly daft to me, I'm going to ask that we seek a few more opinions from people who aren't here with an agenda.
Please feel free to file the Request For Comment, as I've provided you with everything that you've asked for, and still you equivocate. I'll save further comments for those new, neutral editors who come by to weigh in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please take more care with your indentation. Your incorrect indentation made my post look like it was a reply to a post actually made after mine.
I have made no oversight, I was simply pointing out that your quote is simply the opinion of someone and not a reliable source and so we do not need to consider it, indeed, we should not consider it. The only impasse is due to your unwillingness to admit that your proposed inclusion of Australian films in the genre of westerns is not at all widely supported by the sources. Frankly what seems mind bogglingly daft here (to use your expression) is the inclusion of films about Australia in the genre of westerns a genre clearly about the USA. I would request that you AGF and not bandy about accusations of agendas here and further request that you strike those comments. As for providing everything I've requested, you have yet to demonstrate that there is any widespread agreement amongst the sources that films about Australia can be considered to be westerns and in particular Australia (2008 film). Two references, one of which does not make the claim in any case, against the plethora of possible sources that do not make the connection says more eloquently than I ever could that the film is not a western. - Nick Thorne talk 06:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm am going to break this into small, easy to read points, as I am getting a little tired at having them ignored:

  • The quote by McCalmont you are having such issue with was brought here to express that westerns do not fit the narrow view of them being expressed here. As for being a reliable source, he's widely published, and a heck of a lot more reliable a source than any one of us editors. Quite frankly, I am astonished that you think your opinion is of more citable value than someone who we can actually cite reliably.
  • The impasse is not with me, Nick. I have cited numerous sources that explicitly call some of the meat pie westerns westerns. I have proved my point, period. You can argue that the cites aren't on par with another cite, and you are entitled to that opinion to do that. However, as long as the reference is reliable, verifiable and notable, it is usable, according to Wikipedia; I suggest that, should you have a problem with that, RSN is over there, thataway.
  • The article that you and others seem to be protecting from non-American 'intruders' is itself rife with several non-American examples, filmed, produced outside of America, with non-American casts and stories. Forget the film Australia; in complaining about that hodge-podge of a film, you are chasing a firefly while the truck runs you over. Your definition of western is vastly over-simplified. You are not citable, so your opinion/personal definition doesn't come into play here.
  • We have reliable references that describe many of these films as westerns. Therefore - according to Wikipedia, where verifiability and not truth is the guide - it cannot be challenged as to correctness by editors. Our opinions do not - and never will - be able to supplant notable opinions, which are what guides the article. Nothing more. I get that some editors have trouble with that concept, and many leave, unwilling to work within those constraints. I hope you won't end up like that, Nick.

Now, is someone else going to file the RfC, or am I going to have to? I haven't heard a single argument that doesn't fall into the category of "I don't like it" which, of course, is a non-starter, as far as arguments go. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a wall of text from one editor and five others who disagree. So the consensus is clear and I have deleted the Australian "Westerns" accordingly. Specifically, the subgenre that was applied to many of these: "Outback western" has no support, no citations for this terms, no mention in the Western (genre) article. Specifically, Ned Kelly was never in the outback, so a film about him can be neither "outback" nor "Western". Australia is set in the 1940s Northern Territory, so cannot be "contemporary", nor "Western", etc. These film have just been added because someone saw a film with horsemen and cattle. That describes Westerns, but also a lot of other films. Australia has drovers, not cowboys; police, not sheriffs; Aboriginals, not Indians; kangaroos, not buffalo; Chips Rafferty, not John Wayne. 202.81.242.51 (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've reverted out your bold edit. That is not how we conduct discussions here, anon. I suspect - via your usage of terms and edits - that you know this, and are not the anonymous noobie you are pretending to be. You've had an account before; why you are choosing to edit anonymously is anyone's guess, but I'm not really caring. It isn't often we block folk for problematic behavior and edits, but it can be done. Please take note of WP:BRD, and follow it, please. Reverting out the very thing we are discussing is disruptive, tendentious and not at all conducive to collaborative editing.
Several editors added those in over a long period of time, and they were left for quite some time before you or I came along. Therefore, the was a consensus for them to be there. Currently, we have citable references noting the films you removed as being Westerns. If you disagree, file an RfC (I'm sure you know how) and gain a consensus for removal. Currently, there are at least two different conversations ongoing about this topic. You should know - are a party in both of them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a consensus. For one it hasn't been opened to the broader community and it is still under discussion. MisterShiney ✉ 17:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posted from Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Is Australia (2008 film) a "Western"?:

OK, I think it time to get back to some basics here. The burden of providing reliable sources lies with those seeking to include information in the encyclopaedia as per WP:Burden. In this case, to include films about Australia or any other place or time other than the "old west" in the US (which everyone here agrees can be called westerns), requires the presentation that a majority, or even a significant minority of reliable sources consider those films to be westerns. This does not include descriptions with modifiers, such as "Australia western", or "western like" or any one of a plethora of possible variations on the theme. Finding a just handful of sources for a film that actually say that a particular film is a western is not enough if the overwhelming majority do not make the same association. In those cases the provisions of WP:Fringe come into play. In this case the clear majority of editors discussing the issue are opposed to including these films, so there is not even a consensus to keep them. No RFC is required as the removal of un-sourced or poorly sourced information is clearly allowed, again, the burden lies with s/he that wishes to keep or restore the info. This burden has abjectly failed to be met. It is time to delete this nonsense from the articles concerned, unless someone can satisfy the obvious and clearly stated requirements. - Nick Thorne talk 08:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it falls upon the project it'self to define what it would call a Western. Once that is defined then can the we can define if Australian set cowboy films can be classified as Westerns. I am of the mind that they can. There are films, like Ned Kelly that being in the outback, on the frontier of civilisation (just like a western) having gun totting ranch hands in a fight between the white and black hats. I would argue that it is only because the American Western films are well known that we have this stereotype. MisterShiney ✉ 12:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to the project to define a genre. Just like anything, it requires reliable sources of what fits the genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Ned Kelly that being in the outback, on the frontier of civilisation (just like a western) having gun totting ranch hands in a fight between the white and black hats."!! -- It's not set in the "outback" or a "frontier" for that matter. Kelly lived in NE Victoria in the 1870s. Which was just "the bush" then (and still is mostly). There are no "ranches" or "ranch hands" in Victoria, gun toting or otherwise. No one wears a white hat, but the police wear black helmets. However, Ned does wear a suit of armour, so we could classify it along with Camelot (film). If an "outlaw" with a gun on a horse makes a Western, then so is Turpin (about Dick Turpin. 202.81.243.40 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Western_films_of_the_2000s&oldid=1208485792"