This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Interpretations of Fight Club article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
References to use in this article. (see also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources) |
This is not a Wikipedia article. This reads like an essay written by someone studying critical theory. It needs to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's standards. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 23:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I know this discussion is very old, but I am thinking about it in terms of an active series of discussions about the utility of Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film). I'm always a bit uneasy about literary analysis in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are supposed to be sources for facts, and literary analysis is by its very nature opinion. Sure, it's published opinion, but it is opinion nonetheless, and I always have to wonder, when I see it included in an article "why this opinion, why not other published opinions that are out there?" When Wikipedia editors add literary analysis into an article, it's likely they are going to add the analysis that they agree with, that resonates with them, and really the only people who are going to take the time to write sections or articles like this one are going to be the hardcore fans of a particular film. Even knowing these are good faith edits, there is an unavoidable POV issue. I think these kinds of articles/sections are best avoided in the interests of building an encyclopedia with a fundamental principle of Neutral Point of View, though I recognize this may not be a majority opinion here. As a policy issue, I don't think WP:NOTESSAY is the most salient policy, I think the policy that is most applicable is What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, points 6 and 7. Point 6 reads: "Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter," and these kinds of articles always sound like they are trying to teach us how to interpret the film. Point 7 says Wikipedia is not a scientific journal or research paper, and the Themes and Analysis section reads like a literary criticism journal article. As I said previously, literary analysis is opinion, albeit published opinion, not facts. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 16:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
the fascist interpretation section appears to be based solely on the opinion of one film critic (who's attempts to link the film to an analogy of the rise of nazi Germany are pretty weak) there is a much larger more wide spread and accepted interpretation of the film being of an anarchist stand point in its philosophy (which is debatable) but at the very least a nihilist work which it most certainly is more than a fascist work which as I said only one critic came out of the film thinking according to this wikipedia article, why are the other two view points not represented in there own sections. ( 92.23.136.206 ( talk) 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC))
The ones listed feel like some one-note morons wrote them while shot on cocaine. — Kallikanzarid talk 05:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do my comments not show? Jagter80 ( talk) 18:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The interpretation posted on thefincheranalyst.com late last year is the most evidence-based, and original interpretation yet. Any article on the interpretation of Fight Club that does not incorporate this information is missing the purpose of the entire film. Jagter80 ( talk) 18:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
To access this article, Google "LGATs and Fight Club" and follow the link on thefincheranalyst.com. Jagter80 ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not a good writer (english is not my mother tongue) but I guess this interpretation is at least noteworthy: http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol11no2/ReedFightClub.htm What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.203.139 ( talk) 15:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that Fight Club draws also on the intentions of More in his Utopia which also include the dialectic intellectual heritage of the ancients like Plato and Aristotle. Tyler Durden as Utopos, the philosopher-king, with perhaps a teeny bit of emphasis on king? 77.175.64.145 ( talk) 22:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the "Consumerist culture" section may not be up to WP's standards. It's basically a summary of one source that has a clear political viewpoint, and some sentences just express the ideas in that source directly, instead of referring to them as the ideas of those authors. For example, "The extortion is flawed because...", "Fight Club is a reminder to have discourse about ethics and politics but its failed critique...", etc. This is clearly not NPOV. I don't think I can rewrite the section myself, but is there a template for this situation (i.e. "the neutrality of this section is disputed" or "this section may rely overly on one source", etc.)? GranChi ( talk) 19:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to revive this discussion. The article from Giroux and Szeman is a perfectly valid source, but the section's reliance on it makes it seem as if no other opinions exist (particularly when it comes to the success or failing of the film's capitalist criticisms). Other authors do take the perspective of the film's critiques being applicable and relevant, such as " Cults, Consumerism, and the Construction of Self" by Renee D. Lockwood or " The Culture of Disease and The Dis-ease of Culture" by Bennett Kravitz. At the very least as a counterargument, shouldn't they be included in this section? Reversinator ( talk) 18:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The section discussing homoerotic interpretation of the film has only two sources, neither of which go into the level of detail as the wiki article. What appears on the wiki page look largely like the views of the contributor. Suggest that if no further sources are available (preferably something more academic than listicles) the section is removed or at least substantially reworked. Archimedes von Snuggleboots ( talk) 07:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Interpretations of Fight Club article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
References to use in this article. (see also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources) |
This is not a Wikipedia article. This reads like an essay written by someone studying critical theory. It needs to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's standards. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 23:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I know this discussion is very old, but I am thinking about it in terms of an active series of discussions about the utility of Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film). I'm always a bit uneasy about literary analysis in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are supposed to be sources for facts, and literary analysis is by its very nature opinion. Sure, it's published opinion, but it is opinion nonetheless, and I always have to wonder, when I see it included in an article "why this opinion, why not other published opinions that are out there?" When Wikipedia editors add literary analysis into an article, it's likely they are going to add the analysis that they agree with, that resonates with them, and really the only people who are going to take the time to write sections or articles like this one are going to be the hardcore fans of a particular film. Even knowing these are good faith edits, there is an unavoidable POV issue. I think these kinds of articles/sections are best avoided in the interests of building an encyclopedia with a fundamental principle of Neutral Point of View, though I recognize this may not be a majority opinion here. As a policy issue, I don't think WP:NOTESSAY is the most salient policy, I think the policy that is most applicable is What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, points 6 and 7. Point 6 reads: "Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter," and these kinds of articles always sound like they are trying to teach us how to interpret the film. Point 7 says Wikipedia is not a scientific journal or research paper, and the Themes and Analysis section reads like a literary criticism journal article. As I said previously, literary analysis is opinion, albeit published opinion, not facts. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 16:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
the fascist interpretation section appears to be based solely on the opinion of one film critic (who's attempts to link the film to an analogy of the rise of nazi Germany are pretty weak) there is a much larger more wide spread and accepted interpretation of the film being of an anarchist stand point in its philosophy (which is debatable) but at the very least a nihilist work which it most certainly is more than a fascist work which as I said only one critic came out of the film thinking according to this wikipedia article, why are the other two view points not represented in there own sections. ( 92.23.136.206 ( talk) 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC))
The ones listed feel like some one-note morons wrote them while shot on cocaine. — Kallikanzarid talk 05:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do my comments not show? Jagter80 ( talk) 18:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The interpretation posted on thefincheranalyst.com late last year is the most evidence-based, and original interpretation yet. Any article on the interpretation of Fight Club that does not incorporate this information is missing the purpose of the entire film. Jagter80 ( talk) 18:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
To access this article, Google "LGATs and Fight Club" and follow the link on thefincheranalyst.com. Jagter80 ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not a good writer (english is not my mother tongue) but I guess this interpretation is at least noteworthy: http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol11no2/ReedFightClub.htm What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.203.139 ( talk) 15:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that Fight Club draws also on the intentions of More in his Utopia which also include the dialectic intellectual heritage of the ancients like Plato and Aristotle. Tyler Durden as Utopos, the philosopher-king, with perhaps a teeny bit of emphasis on king? 77.175.64.145 ( talk) 22:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the "Consumerist culture" section may not be up to WP's standards. It's basically a summary of one source that has a clear political viewpoint, and some sentences just express the ideas in that source directly, instead of referring to them as the ideas of those authors. For example, "The extortion is flawed because...", "Fight Club is a reminder to have discourse about ethics and politics but its failed critique...", etc. This is clearly not NPOV. I don't think I can rewrite the section myself, but is there a template for this situation (i.e. "the neutrality of this section is disputed" or "this section may rely overly on one source", etc.)? GranChi ( talk) 19:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to revive this discussion. The article from Giroux and Szeman is a perfectly valid source, but the section's reliance on it makes it seem as if no other opinions exist (particularly when it comes to the success or failing of the film's capitalist criticisms). Other authors do take the perspective of the film's critiques being applicable and relevant, such as " Cults, Consumerism, and the Construction of Self" by Renee D. Lockwood or " The Culture of Disease and The Dis-ease of Culture" by Bennett Kravitz. At the very least as a counterargument, shouldn't they be included in this section? Reversinator ( talk) 18:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The section discussing homoerotic interpretation of the film has only two sources, neither of which go into the level of detail as the wiki article. What appears on the wiki page look largely like the views of the contributor. Suggest that if no further sources are available (preferably something more academic than listicles) the section is removed or at least substantially reworked. Archimedes von Snuggleboots ( talk) 07:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)