Talk:Pulp Fiction/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

"A cultural watershed"? Not even close.

Whoever inserted that line is obviously partial to the film and has trouble with the definitions of both 'culture' and 'watershed'. Show me a credible reference -- such as a scholarly paper on cultural watersheds in the 20th century -- that supports this opinion.

Let's see: Beethoven's music as a whole was a cultural watershed, but even that was deemed such only years after his death.
Marx's work as a theoritician as a whole was a cultural watershed.
The creation of the UN was a cultural watershed.
Tarantino's 1994 film was not a cultural watershed. At most, it was a major phenomenon that shook English-speaking popular culture, but its influence seems to dwindle less than two decades later. This calls for a correction in the lead. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 20:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Take the time to scroll down a little, and you will see the "watershed" comment sourced in the context of "other violent watershed films", so that part of your challenge for a "credible reference" was met before you removed the phrase (in this case, Roger Ebert; a widely respected film critic; you don't need someone with a Ph.D. who published in a peer-reviewed journal article for a reference about a film). The "cultural" term in "cultural watershed" is hardly disputable; you yourself used the phrase "major phenomenon that shook English-speaking popular culture". The idea that the film is a "cultural watershed" certainly is a matter of opinion for this or any other film; but in this case it is a sourced opinion from a very reputable source, which is perfectly acceptable in discussing critical reaction to a film. As such, it never should have been deleted without consensus here first. I am restoring it pending any consensus to remove it. Gregorik, you (and all of us) are certainly entitled to your opinion on this matter, and I even respect your right to be bold in removing the phrase, but now that the sourcing has been explained, let's please respect the consensus process and see what others think. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem to ignore everything I said above about cultural watersheds. Siskel and Ebert say nothing about the film being a "cultural watershed" -- presumably because they know it would make them look dumb. As such, the rather bombastic claim in the lead still stands unreferenced, which is an indicator of POV. And yes, when an editor makes a bold claim that something is a cultural watershed, it takes more than a passing Ebert quote to back it up. I don't see a consensus either to leave it in the lead. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
And you seem to be quibbling about semantics. Ebert described it among other "violent watershed films". The film is also a cultural phenomenon. I think you are splitting semantic hairs to insist that the specific phrase' "cultural watershed" be attributed to the source when the meaning is clear. To offer an admittedly simplistic analogy, if a source describes something as containing the color "red", and another source describes it as "having white stripes", do we insist that we must find a third source that describes it with the specific phrase "red with white stripes"? In any event, there is a plausible claim that the concept of the film being a "watershed" in "popular culture" has been sourced. So now we wait for the consensus process to decide whether the very specific phrase "cultural watershed" must be sourced. And that's fine with me; I respect consensus regardless of whether I agree with the outcome. So let's wait and see. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Gregorik. I don't intend to edit war on this matter, and I'll ask you not to do so also. This is a legitimate content dispute; please wait for a consensus here before repeatedly reverting. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me. So I guess we need a 3rd opinion. I'd just like to add that there is a world of difference between a cultural phenomenon and a popular cultural phenomenon. Pulp Fiction (and everything Tarantino) clearly belongs in the sphere of popular culture, simply because it lacks the gravity and significance to influence culture as a whole. It's not just semantics at all. These (culture & pop culture) are two different categories within anthropology, history and sociology. Labeling this crime comedy a "cultural" watershed discredits the entire article that follows. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, thanks. Obviously I disagree with almost everything you've said, but we'll see what others think. We don't need a third opinion as in WP:3O; we just need more opinions in general. This article gets a fair amount of traffic, so I don't think that will be a problem if we give it some time. Let's see what happens before we escalate to formal dispute resolution. Usually the consensus process works well. Cresix (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What about a slight rephrasing of that statement in the lead to reference that critics (specifically) have referred to it as a watershed? Because as it's worded now it sounds like Wikipedia is calling it a watershed when the reality is that this is what others have said. If that makes any sense. Millahnna (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. A rewording like "Critics have referred to Pulp Fiction as a watershed in American cinema" would dissuade the perception that the lead was written by teenage fanboys. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I also think that's a good idea, if it's worded as Gregorik did immediately above. I'd say give this a couple more days to see if other opinions are expressed, then without objection make the change. BTW, I doubt that teenage fanboys have any idea what a "watershed" is :) . Cresix (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a cultural watershed

"Cultural watershed" is a perfectly good and clear summary of the well-sourced discussion of the film's cultural impact in the Influence and reputation section. The rewrite with "shook" was actually much more "bombastic" and "fanboy" in style. We do not need to preface general claims in the lede with superfluous "Critics say" caveats. If the sourcing of the main text is strong, we can and should make simple declarative statements in the lede.—DCGeist (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yours is a neat example of an arrogant disregard of an intelligent talk page discussion and whatever arguments were made in it. I'm replacing the line with the version that 3 of us, Millahnna, Cresix and me, seem to agree with: "Critics have referred to Pulp Fiction as a watershed in American cinema..." ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 20:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Watch your attitude. It is poor, and it has been poor from the very beginning, when you made an unprompted, unnecessary, and unfounded claim about another Wikipedian's "partiality." Focus on content, not contributors. The addition of superfluous verbiage is being reverted while this discussion continues.—DCGeist (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with DCGeist about Gregorik's attitude here. Gregorik, I am willing to discuss and compromise (as I indicated above, I could accept your compromise in wording if others can agree), but please focus on the content issues and not your accusations of "arrogance". And let me re-emphasize: My agreement with your wording was pending what others think. DCGeist has expressed an opinion. As I have already told you, don't edit war. Wait for consensus before making any further changes. Cresix (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's be blunt as it sometimes helps: DCGeist has not expressed an opinion, he made a sweeping statement without commenting on the culture vs popular culture argument, and simply reverted the near-consensual line as if he's entitled to do so. My point was that this is the exact attitude we should all avoid on WP. That's all. No, I'm not edit warring and willing to accept whatever the outcome is. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
First, DCGeist expressed an opinion; it just happens to be one with which you disagree; that doesn't make it less of an opinion. Each of us has expressed opinions, you included. That's what this discussion is about, opinions. Your opinion is fine, but it is your opinion. Secondly, there was not a "near-consensual line". DCGeist wants it the way it was originally, as did I until I listened to Millahnna and decided a compromise might be possible. You originally expressed an opinion that was yours alone, then you decided that the compromise would be acceptable. That's not a "near consensus". We are still in the consensus process. And I won't accuse anyone directly of edit warring, but I think a look at the page's edit history will reveal who has made the most reverts in the middle of this consensus discussion. But for now, let's put the issue of edit warring aside. And please, Gregorik, no more personal comments about DCGeist or any other editor; you did not need to refer to his editing as "arrogant" to make your point. Comment on the issues only. Now, let's see how the consensus process develops. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. My apologies to DCGeist. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I really think it would be a good idea to just put "critics have described the film as a" before the "cultural watershed". It's a simple change that is 1) more accurate a summary of that portion of reception and 2) less likely to be interpreted as POV. Millahnna (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Millahnna. That may be how it plays out. But there is enough difference of opinion at this point that we need to see whether others have ideas about this. Cresix (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Millahnna on this. It would make a lot of sense to qualify "cultural watershed" in the lead with a phrase such as "described as..." or "widely regarded as being..." to defer such a strong declaration to its rightful authors rather than to the authors of the article. It doesn't dimish the meaning it's meant to convey but it does assuage concerns about accuracy of being described as such, especially since we should take no stance one way or the other on whether it is or isn't a cultural watershed. Is William Shakespeare the greatest writer in the English language? Maybe but whether he is or isn't is a debate better left for another venue besides an encylopedia that takes a neutral point of view. Is he widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language? Yes, he is. That's something that's easily verified and difficult to dispute. In the same way, disputing that Pulp Fiction is a cultural watershed is easier than disputing that it's widely considered as such. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 19:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, there seems to be consensus that a qualifier is called for. I've added a terse one that should meet that standard without weighing the passage down with too much uninformative verbiage.—DCGeist (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Your version of a terse qualifier is not strong enough (obviously). ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
"Obviously"? Obviously, you are wrong. It is no weaker than "described as" or "widely regarded as being", has the same informational value, and is more concise. Your version of an analysis is not strong enough to credit.—DCGeist (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't backlash please. The matter is resolved, thanks for the attention. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Gregorik, if you don't want a response, don't make a statement. You criticized DCGeist's change; he responded; and his response was before any of the comments below were made. Now please drop it and move on. There are much more important things to do than bicker. Cresix (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DCGeist's change. I also believe it expresses the sentiment of Big Bird's and Millahnna's comments (I see no difference between "described as ..." and "considered a ..."). It shifts the emphasis from what the film "is" to an emphasis on how critics have described it. So unless Big Bird or Millahnna objects, or another contrary opinion is expressed, it seems that the consensus is to accept the change made by DCGeist. Cresix (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I find DCGeist's qualifier completely satisfactory with regards to this issue. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 21:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm good with the change. Millahnna (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Narrative sections

The article lists seven narrative sections, a few of them with various subsections. Certain of these narrative sections are clearly delineated in the film with title cards, but others (the prelude sections) are not. It would help if the article stated where/when the prelude sections are taking place, to resolve any confusion. (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WTF? The article explains that precisely in the Narrative structure section and represents it visually via font size in the Plot section.—DCGeist (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Kill Bill reference

Uma mentions at one point that she was to play a character that was supposadly the most deady woman in the world with a knife, but the show fell through. I suppose that this is referenced in Kill Bill then? A footnote required on either of the pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source. Cresix (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bonnie Situation

Does anyone think 'The Bonnie Situation' is another way of saying 'A Fine Mess' or 'A Pretty State of Affairs' - in effect, giving two meanings to the word Bonnie? The Oriffice (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an addition to the article (and if so, please provide a reliable source that this was Tarantino's intention), or are you just discussing your impressions of the film (and if so, it is inappropriate for this talk page)? Cresix (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
So is that a yes or a no? Or dnot you udnretsnad the cocnpet of qeutsnois and asnwers? I was half expecting a 'yeah, that's a given' answer, and depending on the feedback I got, it may have been a worthwhile note to add to the article - but, hey, your righteous superior dribblings brightens my evening all the better. The Oriffice (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)