Talk:The Girl (2012 TV film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Expanding this article

I think we need to expand this article to include a reception section and to cover some of the criticism the film has received. One important aspect currently overlooked concerns the views of some of Hitchcock's other leading ladies (notably Doris Day and Kim Novak) who have refuted his portrayal in this picture. Also there's some recent stuff giving Tippi Hedren's point of view, so that needs to be added too. I'll take a look and make some improvements. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded it. The Noval/Day stuff seems to come from a book that seems to have been picked up by several newspapers so probably can't be included. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? This Telegraph article BBC under fire over Hitchcock drama seems as good a source as any other out there. It gives numerous people disputing Hedren's account. They should be in the article. Another Telegraph article Kim Novak tells all has the quote: “I feel bad about all the stuff people are saying about him now, that he was a weird character,” says Novak. “I did not find him to be weird at all. I never saw him make a pass at anybody or act strange to anybody. And wouldn’t you think if he was that way, I would’ve seen it or at least seen him with somebody? I think it’s unfortunate when someone’s no longer around and can’t defend themselves.”

It's inaccurate to have this WP page make it appear Hedren's claims are only disputed by the widow of Jim Brown, assistant director on The Birds and Marnie. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the Novak interview. I hadn't got to it yet, and we can definitely use the quote you mention. I did see the other Telegraph article concerning Doris Day et al, but wasn't entirely sure whether the actresses quoted are being done so from the book, or as a response to the film. The article itself is certainly a response to the film, but if they're just quotes a journalist has lifted from the book in order to build a case against Hedren's claims I suspect it may be more at home in the Alfred Hitchcock article itself. What is the best way forward with this? Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be that the quotes come from The Making of Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds by Tony Lee Moral, a book scheduled for publication on 25 March 2013, but as the Telegraph and the other media sources that picked the story up haven't attributed a direct source we can't be certain. Moving into the realms of WP:CRYSTAL for a moment, it's feasible to imagine the book might discuss Hedren's comments, and the quotes are a rebuttal, but we'll only know that once the book is on sale. If that is the case we can add them, but we need to be sure about this. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the Novak quote, and for your work overall in expanding this article. But I must say there's no reason to assume the other quotes are not valid. They are from a RS and I see no reason not to use them. The lead now makes it sound like only two people have a problem with this portrayal. That is still not accurate. Response to The Girl belongs in this article, though it should go in the Hitchcock article as well when The Girl is brought up there. At minimum the author Tony Lee Moral also disputes it. The quotes from the Telegraph article BBC under fire over Hitchcock drama are important because they illustrate Hitchcock's perfectionism, including his paying close attention to every detail with the leading ladies' characters and appearances in his films. This could have been misinterpreted by Hedren. If the article needs to be amended once the book is released in March, then that can and should be done at that time, but we shouldn't wait until then to include these quotes. I'm sure everyone is standing by what they said, regardless of who it was said to. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we could say something like "An article in the Daily Telegraph quoted several actresses who worked with Hitchcock, all of who refuted Hedren's account of him." But I'm not sure whether that would count as original research. The question is whether they are actually a response to her claims of if the article's author has just joined the dots. I wonder because I've seen the article reproduced almost word-for-word in a couple of sources from the US and Canada. I'm somewhat hesitant to add it at present, but hope once this goes to DYK that a few people might see this discussion and contribute their thoughts so we can decide what the best approach is here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

For now, we could simply say "An article in the Daily Telegraph responding to this film quoted several actresses who worked with Hitchcock", and give the quotes. Then in March amend it accordingly if necessary. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the same story from the Calgary Herald and Daily News, which quotes the Telegraph as the original source. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's common for articles of interest to be picked up by other newspapers. One of your two linked articles (from Calgary) credits the original Telegraph writer David Millward, and the other (from Mumbai, India) simply credits the Daily Telegraph. I remember first noticing L.A. Times articles being printed in my hometown paper years ago when I was a teenager. Sometimes they edit them a bit, sometimes they're identical. But this doesn't take away or add to the original story's credibility - it just means it's of particular interest. I don't know why you would hold this against the original article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to add it if you think the information is necessary, but I'd just mention it briefly and leave out the actual quotes at this stage. As I've said previously it's not clear whether the quotes are a response to the film and what Hedren has said or the journalist's own work. I suspect as Moral was probably working on the book at the same time The Girl was in production he may have covered the subject. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

ok, I've added it along with details of a screening at the BFI which attracted some criticism. Let's wait for the book to be published before we add more. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This version is better. I made a few minor adjustments as well. I'd still like to see at least one more: Again, the quotes from the other actresses are important, including Hitchcock's paying close attention to every detail with the leading ladies' characters and appearances in his films. They back this up, but say there was no harassment involved. This should be added to the Background section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for tweaking the article. I'm happy for you to add something about the actresses in the background if you want to. I may just be being over cautious. Also, if you could find one or two images to upload that would also be good. It may be worth taking this forward to GA at some future point so any improvements to it are helpful. Cheers, Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't had time yet to decide exactly how to integrate more into the Background section. I'm less enthused about adding images after several were deleted from the Stanley Kubrick article that another editor I was working with had found and put up. I had worked on their captions and defended their inclusion, only to see them wiped out weeks later. On the plus side, I was involved in a number of improvements to the article, however. On another note, I have to take issue with She refuses to work with him again, but because she is still contractually obliged to him he does not allow her to work for another director, effectively ending her Hollywood career. I only saw the film once, but I don't remember him offering her any specific role after Marnie, much less her turning it down. There is the scene near the end where he is depicted making her a general offer, but the wording here makes it sound like another specific film role was put forward, which never happened. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I remember of the film, she signed a seven year contract with Hitchcock's studio, but had had enough of his attention by the time they were working on Marnie, so decided to walk away from the situation. You're right that he didn't offer another part to her, but I got the impression she wouldn't have accepted it if he had. In reality, of course, it's well-documented that he wouldn't allow her to work for other producers and kept her on his payroll for the duration of her contract, but I'm not sure whether that was actually mentioned in the film. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, now we have "Hedren grows increasingly anguished by his attention and eventually decides to leave his studio, but Hitchcock refuses to release her from her contract and threatens to destroy her career." I think that's more in line with what happened, but let me know what you think. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds more melodramatic than the film depicts. They're just seen having that last discussion. Perhaps something like Hedren grows increasingly anguished by his attention and eventually decides she needs to get out of the situation, but because she is still signed exclusively to his contract, she cannot work elsewhere. This effectively ends her Hollywood career. BTW, Hitchcock did not have his own studio, he was working at Universal from The Birds to the end of his career. He did have his own production company, to which Hedren was signed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That works for me, I'll change it now. I forget exactly what was said in their final conversation, but some of the reviews report him threatening to destroy her career, and the synopsis is based in part on those, as well as what I recall of the film. At the moment the information is also included in the plot summary, so if you want to amend that please feel free to do it. Ideally it would be useful if the BBC decided to repeat the film, but I guess that won't happen till next Christmas. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I decided to have a go at the plot summary. Have a read through and let me know what you make of it. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems good. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I finally took the time to put one quote into the Background section, the most applicable one from Eve Marie Saint. It's important, as discussed above. Your image is good. The article is looking reasonably complete now, but more can always be done... - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I found it at Amazon yesterday so thought I'd have a go at uploading it. I like what you've done with the quote. I think the background is the appropriate place to discuss the response to what Hedren claims. I'm not sure whether we need to include the Telegraph article in the criticism section now as it's mentioned earlier, so I'll take that bit out. You can always restore it if you don't agree though. Another thing we may need to add is some viewing figures for the film's US and UK television debuts. Finding them for the UK seems quite straightforward, but I can't seem to track them down for the US. If you can help with that it would be much appreciated. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The response to Hedren and/or the film is needed in the Background and the Criticism sections. I restored that sentence. Using the same source as a ref in more than one place on a page is common on WP. I haven't seen any data on viewership for the US showing on HBO. I've noticed HBO and other pay TV ratings don't seem to be covered in weekly reports unless they're unusally remarkable. However some articles here use TV by the Numbers - I've never used it before, but I just did a quick search there for The Girl and The Girl HBO but didn't find anything applicable, and that was all articles. You may want to see if you can search weekly reports there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've consolidated the refs and de-linked Eve Marie Saint as we already have a link to her in the earlier section. Thanks for the audience figures source. I'll take a look and see what I can find, and perhaps ask at the refdesk if anyone can help. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

ok, think I have it from here, showing the film was watched by 0.722 million viewers. As I've seen the same site used at List of Awake episodes, a Featured Article no less then I guess it's ok for here. It's getting late now, so I'll write something tomorrow. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to raise a question about it, but that link's only ref to The Girl appears to be from a comment, not the source's article. Doesn't mean it's not accurate, but it wouldn't be considered RS. The commenter gave his source: Nielsen Media Research - Read more at The Futon Critic, but that's sourced to a Twitter page... - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nielsen is definitely a reliable source, but now the job is to track it down. :) For now I've added it as an offline source, but have asked at the Refdesk. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

More expansion

Time for a new section as that last one is getting rather difficult to edit. I've added a quote from Anthony Hopkins who has questioned the need for this film to be made. I think I've chosen the best of what is said, but as ever let me know what you make of it. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, seems good. A commenter on that page raised a few interesting points, if they could be verified - one of which was It was just over a year after "Marnie" that she was released from her contract. I'd like to see an authoritative source for that, as well as his other points. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

From the lady herself in this Financial Times article: "He kept me under contract, paid me to do nothing for close on two years." [after she finished filming Marnie]. I'll let you add that somewhere if you want to do that. I've also read a posting somewhere that says the platform scene from Marnie wasn't filmed in a greenroom, as was claimed in the film. Might be interesting to see if there's anything that highlights any errors from this production. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The green screen scene that was actually shot on location was also mentioned by the commenter I read. That's interesting, and goes to the film's authenticity, but it's a smaller detail, and the kind of thing often fictionalized for whatever reason, so it's less important. But the first quote on the length of her contract should go in. That is obviously significant. It looks like it should go in the Background section, so again one has to determine how to best integrate it. On another note, it's been a while since I read Spoto's first two books on Hitchcock, but I don't remember The Dark Side of Genius going into the kind of charges Hedren brought up recently. Just that he was weird, perhaps brusque, etc. And the story of Melanie Griffith being given that doll of her mother Hedren, which supposedly disturbed her. But that was it. The Alex von Tunzelmann article says Then, in 1983, came Donald Spoto's biography, The Dark Side of Genius. Spoto revealed that Hitchcock had harassed actor Tippi Hedren on the set of 1963's The Birds to the point of physical and psychological collapse. That's more than I remember, and it could be talking about the trauma of shooting the attic scene. Then it continues During the filming of the followup, Marnie, Hedren claimed that he also "made an overt sexual proposition", and when she resisted "became threatening", saying he would ruin her career. What's the source for that? The article's wording gives the impression Hedred laid it all out then, when she herself told The New Yorker she only brought it up recently. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Post-Hitchcock information

The fact Hedren turned down work from Universal and was fired for it - which she admits - is obviously important. This happened after her contract with Hitchcock ended, and belongs in the Background section, as it probably had an effect on her career. I can't believe you took that out, saying it's not in the context of the film, but put in the 1967 Charlie Chaplin film, which is interesting but completely out of context with the film, and was not her first acting job after Hitchcock. She was on two TV shows in 1965. (Not that I'm against mentioning the Chaplin film on the page. Just don't make it sound like it was her first acting role after Marnie.) My contributions to the Background section were written with neutral language. You have now added "Hitchcock refused to allow her to work with anyone else during that period, turning down offers of work on her behalf, including one from French director Francois Truffault." None of that is known fact. Hedren is its only source. I got that across in her quote preceding it. Your added sentence is redundant and makes it sound like proven fact. The bit about the late Truffaut should not be there, unless you want to explain its only source is her claim she "heard" about it "much later", and others in his camp dispute it. His people have reportedly denied he ever offered her any role. Truffaut, who was close to Hitchcock, would not be happy that he was being used to back up her claims. Finally, Hedren is listed as appearing in 80 film and television productions. I don't know why you changed it to 30. The source you apparently used says she has had parts in more than 30 TV series and in as many movies since 1970. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the information you added because that article from The Times was written some years before the film was even conceived, and my understanding is that references should be related to the topic. That is, in this case they should be about the film itself. There's a place for discussing the wider subject of Hedren's claims, and what Hitchcock did or didn't do in their respective articles. Anyway, having removed it I then looked for something referring to the film that could support what you were saying. There are no other references to her being fired from Universal because she wouldn't appear in one of their shows, or for television appearances in 1965. I'm not saying these things didn't happen, but we have to go with what is being reported. I've now changed the sentence to say that it was her first film role following Marnie which seems accurate, but it may be better to remove the thing altogether as we have to be careful the article isn't going "off topic" as it were. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

ok, the whole lot's gone now, including the re-added Times reference. Reading it through again I feel it takes the page off-topic and detracts from what the article is about, which is the film and its content. If a reference discussing the film also mentions that Hitchcock sold her contract to Universal or that she later got fired by them then I'll be happy to see it included, but for now I don't think it's relevant and smacks a little of original research. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Taking that out leaves Hedren's claims about the contract stand unchallenged. There is no rule calling for what you're doing here. The Times is obviously RS. That was for the Background section of the acrticle. It's legitimate for the Background section to cover what happened with the people involved, especially when the article is giving the film's version of the aftermath, which should not be left there unchallenged as if it gives the whole, complete truth. I'm not aware of any rule that true facts regarding the background of a subject have to be from a source talking about the film based on that film's true subject. No such thing is adhered to on other WP film pages. You'd better quote that rule, and it will have to be specific to this type of situation, or I will be restoring that text tomorrow. I'll be taking this to WP:RSN and/or WP:DRN if necessary. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:3O is the place to start with this, and I'll take it there today. My comments are based on the opening paragraph of WP:OR, which says: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The main topic here is the film. Hedren's allegations are secondary to that, and any background information in this article must discuss her allegations in the context of the film. An article from 2005 predates both the film and the book on which it is based, so to my mind doesn't pass the WP:OR criteria. Also there are no other sources giving this information, but if it had been picked up more recently in the media coverage of the film then we could use it. But I'm happy to get a third opinion on this anyway, as it'll hopefully clear the matter up. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A rule like that about WP:OR is not specific to this type of situation. We're talking about the Background section of the article, and the text you removed was addressing the same situation between the same two people as the RS was covering, as discussed above. The situation between them is the subject of the film. But I agree others should weigh in. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely something that has to be considered. The preceding sentence says "[Original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." If my interpretation is right and film articles are being written in a style that allows this then there's one hell of a mess to clear up. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is also an interesting article that makes passing mention to Hedren, but again, whether we can use it here is debatable. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Refdump

• Mendoza, Nadia (19 September 2012). "Sienna Miller is the object of Hitchcock's obsession as Tippi Hedren in eerie trailer for The Girl". Daily Mail. Daily Mail and General Trust. Retrieved 7 January 2013.

UK ratings

• Sweney, Mark (27 December 2012). "Miranda wins Harts with 10 million viewers ahead of That Dog Can Dance!". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 9 January 2013.

Quotes

Hedren quote from Telegraph, 22 October 2012 on film's subject matter after attending a screening:

I don't know if any of you women have had a horrible experience of being the object of someone's obsession. If you have, you would know exactly what that's like. It's oppressive and frightening. You find out that you've been followed and you're being spied upon, and made demands of that you would never acquiesce to in any circumstances. It becomes a situation of not being able to deal with it, not wanting to deal with it and not dealing with it.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Girl (2012 HBO film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruce1ee (talk · contribs) 07:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this nomination. I've already done a first-pass through the article and it looks good, but I'll follow up here with my findings over the next day or two. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Overall this is a nicely written article, it's clear, well-sourced and gives a good coverage of the subject. Some minor points:

• I've done a little punctuation copyediting. There were a couple of instances of missing close quote marks, and I fixed some "quotes within quotes" problems (see MOS:QUOTE).

• In the "Background" section, first sentence, Donald Spoto's book Spellbound by Beauty should be dated. It is dated in the lead section, but the lead summarises the body of the article.
  • Done.
• In the "Ratings" section, I think "Boxing Day" should be linked, it's only observed in Commonwealth nations, and for clarity, I think the date (26 December 2012) should also be added.
  • Done.
• Have you considered added a couple of pictures to the article? For example File:Hitchcock, Alfred 02.jpg and File:Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds Trailer - Tippi.png (I can't find any free pictures of Miller from this film). It's just a thought and not a GA requirement.
  • Done.

—Bruce1ee^talk 13:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and for correcting the punctuation. I've made the changes suggested and added the images. Let me know if anything else needs doing. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response and the updates. I've promoted the article – well done! —Bruce1ee^talk 15:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is fine; no indications of close paraphrasing or copyright violations
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Resources all appear to be reliable
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One fair use image used, correctly tagged
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See comments above Done
	7. Overall assessment.	Waiting on feedback on comments above All addressed – pass

Third opinion

I'm requesting a third opinion because of a disagreement over whether an indirectly related reference can be considered as a reliable source or falls into the category of original research. This edit was made to the article on 29 January adding a piece from The Times published several years ago that discusses subjects related to this film, i.e., Tippi Hedren and Alfred Hitchcock. I removed it because it almost certainly doesn't do so in the context of the film, although it does apparently cover the same issue addressed there; allegations Hedren has made concerning Hitchcock's behaviour towards her. My main reasons for removing it is that I could not find the information it supported in any other references, and also because I thought it might be regarded as original research because it predates the film's conception as an idea. I later removed it for a second time after the information was restored, and the editor concerned has expressed his intention to restore it once again because he feels the article is unbalanced without it and that its use is acceptable because it discusses the background to the film (see this discussion for further details). A third opinion is needed therefore to clarify what the situation actually is with sources like this. Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The source itself is allowable, and can be included. But it shoudln't be, nor should most of the section. It seems the dispute isn't actually about the quality of the references, but about the relevance of this information to the movie. The core problem, as I see it, is that only the first paragraph of the "Background" section seems to be a "directly related reference". That is the only paragraph that actually discusses the background of "The Girl". The rest of the section is not really background on the film. It is background on the real-life counterparts of the movie characters. One of those those counterparts, Hedren, has given interviews that were published as part of promotional material for the film, but that doesn't actually make it background to the movie. Hedren's allegations made in an interview after production had finished are no more background to the film than the material that has been removed. It's not background at all, it's just allegations against the real-life Hitchcock. But if we allow one we must allow the other. So the problem is that the "background" section has become a section for elaborating on the allegations made in the movie, rather than being on the actual background of the movie. To date it is essentially a forum for Hedren's viewpoint to be espoused. That will inevitably lead to other editors wishing to put forward alternative viewpoints to support Hitchcock, as indeed they should in order to maintain balance and NPOV. All but the first paragraph should be removed from the "Background" section, and a new "Controversy" section created. And within the "Controversy" section we need to strive for balance. That can only mean that we need to present material that refutes the allegations, and so the material removed should be reinstated or replaced with essentially identical material such as this [[1]] this [[2]] or this [[3]] or the myriad other articles criticisng or refuting the film and Hedren's allegations. It isn't OR because it's commenting on allegations made against Hitchock in real life, not in the film, just as Hedren's allegations were made to a reporter in real life, not in the film. Either both are relevant to this article and need to be presented for balance, or neither are. Sorry for the long-winded response, but I thought it was worth explaining my reasons, given then the stated dispute is only tangential to what i think is the the real issue. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If the Background section is removed, Hedren's charges stand unchallenged (except for the Criticism section), as the film itself is based on her version of events, as told to Spoto, and then others. The film is not balanced. It only gives her side. Film articles often go into how they're different from their sources (e.g. novels they're based on, etc). When they're based on real people this is particularly relevant, and should be included in a Background section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not be against your newly added proposal in the text above about creating a Controversy section. I didn't do that before because it seemed putting it in the Background section kept it all in the same place, and a lot of it would cover the same ground. But if the Background section is only going to be devoted to the development and writing of the film, then the Controversy section should be created. And it should include The Times article as a RS. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I largely agree. We shouldn't remove the background section because it is important information. However only the first paragraph should remain there. Differing versions of history are not background to the film. This is partcilarly obvious when you realise that they are based on interviews given after production on the film ceased. Since there is apparently controversy surrounding this film, we should add a "Controversy" or "Reaction" section, as is the case for other controversial films, eg Nixon (film) or Fahrenheit 9/11. You are quite correct, Hedren's claims shouldn't go unchallenged. Not because the movie is one-sided: it's not the job of Wikipedia editors to try to counterbalance popular media. It shouldn't go unchallenged because a quick Google search has revealed plenty of material from reliable sources noting the controversy surrounding the film. You should add as many of these as you think is required to maintain balance. You shouldn't actually need to add The Times article since it seems to all be restated in other, more recent sources that directly refer to the film (eg [[4]]. That should resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction. But if you really think that it's important, IMO it's acceptable and not OR because it's referring to real-life allegations made by Hedren, not to events in the movie.Mark Marathon (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree a controversy section is sensible, but would point out that the sources discussing the controversy in the films cited above appear to be doing so retrospectively, so that would still seem to rule out using that particular piece from The Times. Ideally, the statement it supports needs more than one source, and though I looked I didn't find anything else to support it. Another problem is that the reference didn't appear to support all the added material. As this is a GA it needs to stay in shape, especially as my intention is to take this forward to FAC. I don't know whether either of you have had much involvement with the FAC process, but having submitted articles to it myself I've no doubt one of the first issues that would arise would be the use of The Times reference, so my decision to remove it was based on their criteria. There is actually a lot of rebuttal of Hedren's claims included here already, so perhaps it just needs restructuring. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

ok, made a start on the Controversy section, though it may need further work. Of the three references listed above, the Telegraph is the one to use. The other two only repeat what is reported there, and the Hufffington Post may not be a suitable reference for an encyclopedia. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Panic over. This discusses both the film and the post-Marnie events, so I've added it as a source. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Generally looks good, but pursuit of FAC should not be used to exclude refs. There's no reason not to use more than one, especially with a Controversy section. If you want to use that as a source because it's readily accessible, fine, but The Times should be listed as a ref as well. I've seen a number of sources less accessible because of paywalls, etc., used a refs, and it's needed here for backup, as it's much better known. You said yourself the statement it supports needs more than one source. The Hufffington Post is also frequently used on WP film articles, and this one Mark Marathon linked above is particularly good as it gives a lot of info in one place, and is readily accessible. Readers often use refs as links to further reading. I've frequently found interesting articles that way. With controversial material, more than one ref for the same facts is common and should be done here as well. Also, This account of Hitchcock was given to Spoto by Hedren should be in the Background section, even it it is effectively repeated in the Controversy section. Otherwise it sounds like Spoto got those claims from sources beyond Hedren. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll look for a couple of other refs to add that are more well known as there's bound to be others. Now I've found a version of the original it has become easier to locate other articles discussing the subject. In the meantime I've tracked downs a rather interesting article from Broadcast Now in which Tony Lee Moral discusses Hedren's claims at length. From it I get the impression that when his book is released there'll be a lot of useful material in there that can be used here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

More removed text

The reference from The Times (discussed above) may or may not be classed as original research, but I've no doubt that the following, added yesterday, and which I've just removed, would definitely fall into that category:

However, she admitted in a 1973 interview that a major life-style difference caused a split in their relationship. "He was too possessive and too demanding. I cannot be possessed by anyone. But, then, that's my own hangup." In 1979, she confessed the two reached an impasse. "I broke the contract because there was just no way to go. It was an impossible situation. How can I put it? It just became where it wasn't good working, we reached an impasse [...] over sort of everything."

By all means add it to Tippi Hedren's article, where it would make a useful addition, but I don't think it belongs here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)