This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andhenne, Hannah.pittman95, Elizabeth.allen.. Peer reviewers: Iriszhao0619, Jgomeskuehner.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
In the section "Mental Health and Gender", the following is currently stated: "...and pretending to be pregnant are manipulative techniques"
But in the film, Alex is not "pretending" to be pregnant. Her pregnancy is confirmed by Dan when he calls the doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnaf ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That whole section doesn't seem like NPOV - or rather, it seems to talk in absolutes - "this is what female stalkers do" as opposed to "these are common behaviours of female stalkers". Should leave describing stalking behaviour to the article on stalking generally - how much of this could be replaced by something like "film scholars/psychologists have said..." with refs, whether that's "praised the film for its strikingly realistic portrayal of a female stalker" or saying that it's way OTT. A link to the relevant wiki article would make sense too. The bits on how Glenn Close felt about the role seem appropriate. Dichohecho ( talk) 15:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC) The source "A Study of Women Who Stalk" seems like a reasonable source for the stalking article but I think what we need here is a specific source on stalking *in* Fatal Attraction. Dichohecho ( talk) 15:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
We need to come to a consensus on the genre for this film. I suggest thriller since it does "emphasize nervous tension and anxiety." I disagree with it being considered a slasher film given it doesn't satisfy any of the general characteristics listed in that description: "The slasher film is a sub-genre of the horror film genre. Typically, a masked, psychotic person stalks and graphically kills teenagers or young adults who are away from adult supervision...". mtz206 03:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Reverted the recent edit by 70.30.127.52. It needs citations, and seems a little like original research. If properly reinserted, should be in its own section (perhaps "Critical reaction"?), not in the Awards section. -- mtz206 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
" Osbessed" follows a strikingly similar plot and is at least inspired by the movie. Should there be any mention of this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 ( talk) 03:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Who is the Gelder referenced in the Psychiatric Diagnosis section? I ask because I'm currently attempting to figure out the truth behind Alex's illness. Erotomonaia, as defined on Wikipedia, sounds like an even further shot from BPD. If anyone could direct me towards more information on Gelder and interviews re: the planning of Alex's character, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.141 ( talk) 00:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
No discussion of production history (took seven years to get produced), the original story from whence the ultimate script was adopted, the changing directors, the difficult choice of male and female leads, how Glenn Close was initially turned down for the role, how Brian de Palma refused direct it if Michael Douglas played the lead, etc. Total neglect of the production values/challenges.
Mostly all plot. AlbertBowes ( talk) 16:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just proposed Bunny boiler be merged into this article. I don't think that term—having little more than a stub after I cleaned it up—is sufficiently notable in its own right to deserve its own article; I do think it's notable enough to deserve a brief mention in this article of its appearance in everyday language, however. — me_ and 00:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Section was removed due to lack of reliable sources. I'm not sure if dictionaries such as Oxford or Collins are good enough sources either but they'd certainly be better than IMDB and Urbandictionary. -- 93.107.152.57 ( talk) 11:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think a determination needs to be made as to whether this section constitutes little more than fancruft, and if not, what criteria we should be using to define a film as being "similar". Thanks for your feedback; if I don't hear from anyone I'll likely remove this at some point, as it doesn't strike me as being especially encyclopedic. Doniago ( talk) 14:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
For the home media section, the information is not adding anything substantial on the main topics surrounding the film. The section only discusses the two dvd re-releases. Even with mentions of the Special Collector's Edition and Blu-Ray edition, the special features mentioned are not significant enough for one point out in the article. The information is cited with sources from Amazon. For a section like this to have significance, I believe that there should be sources found that show how the DVD re-releases are distinct from other DVD re-releases. Scvalde ( talk) 17:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why? They are often biased and not factual. Anyone can write a blog post and a press release is incredibly skewed one way or another.
What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company? Being that the website is for the company itself, the information will only reflect the best image of the topic, so it is not coming from a reputable or unbiased source.
What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism? Copyright violation would be when I take a photo and use it in a posting without the permission of the author/original poster. The issue with plagiarism is taking someone's work without giving them credit or citing their hard work.
What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism? We learned that the best thing to do is take the information, close the source for a little while, and summarize or analyze the information in a separate document so that we aren't tempted to use too much information from the source in our own work.
Andhenne ( talk) 14:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The psychological and academic analysis could use more work, we could add some information on the implications of Glenn Close's character and the psychological dissent she incurs. Also, the correlation between her being a strong career woman and her psychopathic tendencies and the reception that that has been given by feminists could use more content and citations.
Glenn Close's character in Fatal Attraction has psychopathic characteristics that are problematic, as they are ascribed to a successful and career-oriented woman, subsequently causing them to associate psychopathy to a woman's success.
How can we include more that gives us an idea of the implications this movie pushes towards powerful women? Elizabeth.allen. ( talk) 03:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The Not Going Out episode Rachel is a parody of Fatal Attraction. Maybe that could be mentioned somewhere in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.144.192 ( talk • contribs)
Bunny boiler redirects here, but after many edits there is now no reference to the concept in the article, either in the context of the film or more generally. The redirect may as well be deleted. Personally I think the merge a decade ago was a mistake. Ef80 ( talk) 22:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
In reference 23, a critic's opening words are replaced by "The film brings". Why is this? I don't want to buy a back issue of Time or Time.com subscription, even if they are reasonably priced. InedibleHulk ( talk) 10:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andhenne, Hannah.pittman95, Elizabeth.allen.. Peer reviewers: Iriszhao0619, Jgomeskuehner.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
In the section "Mental Health and Gender", the following is currently stated: "...and pretending to be pregnant are manipulative techniques"
But in the film, Alex is not "pretending" to be pregnant. Her pregnancy is confirmed by Dan when he calls the doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnaf ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That whole section doesn't seem like NPOV - or rather, it seems to talk in absolutes - "this is what female stalkers do" as opposed to "these are common behaviours of female stalkers". Should leave describing stalking behaviour to the article on stalking generally - how much of this could be replaced by something like "film scholars/psychologists have said..." with refs, whether that's "praised the film for its strikingly realistic portrayal of a female stalker" or saying that it's way OTT. A link to the relevant wiki article would make sense too. The bits on how Glenn Close felt about the role seem appropriate. Dichohecho ( talk) 15:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC) The source "A Study of Women Who Stalk" seems like a reasonable source for the stalking article but I think what we need here is a specific source on stalking *in* Fatal Attraction. Dichohecho ( talk) 15:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
We need to come to a consensus on the genre for this film. I suggest thriller since it does "emphasize nervous tension and anxiety." I disagree with it being considered a slasher film given it doesn't satisfy any of the general characteristics listed in that description: "The slasher film is a sub-genre of the horror film genre. Typically, a masked, psychotic person stalks and graphically kills teenagers or young adults who are away from adult supervision...". mtz206 03:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Reverted the recent edit by 70.30.127.52. It needs citations, and seems a little like original research. If properly reinserted, should be in its own section (perhaps "Critical reaction"?), not in the Awards section. -- mtz206 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
" Osbessed" follows a strikingly similar plot and is at least inspired by the movie. Should there be any mention of this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 ( talk) 03:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Who is the Gelder referenced in the Psychiatric Diagnosis section? I ask because I'm currently attempting to figure out the truth behind Alex's illness. Erotomonaia, as defined on Wikipedia, sounds like an even further shot from BPD. If anyone could direct me towards more information on Gelder and interviews re: the planning of Alex's character, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.141 ( talk) 00:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
No discussion of production history (took seven years to get produced), the original story from whence the ultimate script was adopted, the changing directors, the difficult choice of male and female leads, how Glenn Close was initially turned down for the role, how Brian de Palma refused direct it if Michael Douglas played the lead, etc. Total neglect of the production values/challenges.
Mostly all plot. AlbertBowes ( talk) 16:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just proposed Bunny boiler be merged into this article. I don't think that term—having little more than a stub after I cleaned it up—is sufficiently notable in its own right to deserve its own article; I do think it's notable enough to deserve a brief mention in this article of its appearance in everyday language, however. — me_ and 00:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Section was removed due to lack of reliable sources. I'm not sure if dictionaries such as Oxford or Collins are good enough sources either but they'd certainly be better than IMDB and Urbandictionary. -- 93.107.152.57 ( talk) 11:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think a determination needs to be made as to whether this section constitutes little more than fancruft, and if not, what criteria we should be using to define a film as being "similar". Thanks for your feedback; if I don't hear from anyone I'll likely remove this at some point, as it doesn't strike me as being especially encyclopedic. Doniago ( talk) 14:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
For the home media section, the information is not adding anything substantial on the main topics surrounding the film. The section only discusses the two dvd re-releases. Even with mentions of the Special Collector's Edition and Blu-Ray edition, the special features mentioned are not significant enough for one point out in the article. The information is cited with sources from Amazon. For a section like this to have significance, I believe that there should be sources found that show how the DVD re-releases are distinct from other DVD re-releases. Scvalde ( talk) 17:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why? They are often biased and not factual. Anyone can write a blog post and a press release is incredibly skewed one way or another.
What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company? Being that the website is for the company itself, the information will only reflect the best image of the topic, so it is not coming from a reputable or unbiased source.
What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism? Copyright violation would be when I take a photo and use it in a posting without the permission of the author/original poster. The issue with plagiarism is taking someone's work without giving them credit or citing their hard work.
What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism? We learned that the best thing to do is take the information, close the source for a little while, and summarize or analyze the information in a separate document so that we aren't tempted to use too much information from the source in our own work.
Andhenne ( talk) 14:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The psychological and academic analysis could use more work, we could add some information on the implications of Glenn Close's character and the psychological dissent she incurs. Also, the correlation between her being a strong career woman and her psychopathic tendencies and the reception that that has been given by feminists could use more content and citations.
Glenn Close's character in Fatal Attraction has psychopathic characteristics that are problematic, as they are ascribed to a successful and career-oriented woman, subsequently causing them to associate psychopathy to a woman's success.
How can we include more that gives us an idea of the implications this movie pushes towards powerful women? Elizabeth.allen. ( talk) 03:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The Not Going Out episode Rachel is a parody of Fatal Attraction. Maybe that could be mentioned somewhere in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.144.192 ( talk • contribs)
Bunny boiler redirects here, but after many edits there is now no reference to the concept in the article, either in the context of the film or more generally. The redirect may as well be deleted. Personally I think the merge a decade ago was a mistake. Ef80 ( talk) 22:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
In reference 23, a critic's opening words are replaced by "The film brings". Why is this? I don't want to buy a back issue of Time or Time.com subscription, even if they are reasonably priced. InedibleHulk ( talk) 10:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)