![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The September 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at
User talk:Chigurgh, is considered
bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. As much as I wish for his warnings to stick and be viewable on his talk page - he is allowed to change or remove them as he sees fit. Once done - other users are not supposed to revert those edits, or edit the contributions/deletions of/by others.
Srobak (
talk)
21:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no way for us to block him, We can only ask for help since he's out of our hands. I've made a note of him at WP:AIV. Let's see what happens. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Had you read the "Production" section, you would find an appropriate mention to the stadium scene... Had I read the essay WP:HTRIV, I would not argue with you about such a minor issue...
By the way, I'am the main contributor to this article and much more than this, I'am a Huracán fan, therefore my interest in "The Secret in their Eyes" is understandable. ;) Thank you.-- Darius ( talk) 23:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I have respected your reverts for over a month without reverting. Now my version has garnered some support. Please respect other users and wait before reverting my version, the same consideration I showed you. Also since you claim my version is so poor you should have no trouble finding another editor to revert. Please keep in mind wikipedia is collective effort. Valoem talk 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
A. You repeatedly ask me what is wrong with your version and I explain it to you. Then you brush off my comments and ask again what is wrong. I have made about 10 posts regarding issues with your version. I said it does not have the proper details and is ambiguous to any reader who has not seen the film. Then you ignore that as if I didn't say anything.
B. You ask me to discuss this issue which I have for over two months. You are being disrespectful by reverting my edit when I have not been reverting yours. My patience is wearing thin. Stop your behavior.
Also please keep in mind I will no longer be discussing this issue with you as you are clearly bias. Valoem talk 15:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the
three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the
talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains
consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I watched it with Japanese subtitles so I am in no position to judge the actual dialogue. As long as there is a link to both the Jewish/Christian version as well as the Koran it seems npov... andycjp ( talk) 10:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please, at the talk page, explain why you removed that section of the text. It seemed nobody else had a problem with that besides you, and I believe those of us involved in the discussion deserve to hear your reasoning, and perhaps you could persuade the consensus.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 19:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the attention to the La Strada article. I've been concerned that we are correct about Zampano. Is he real Gypsy or would it be better to refer to him as a gypsy? I can't verify it, but I'm of the opinion that Fellini did not consider him a Gypsy, and if he's not, it's slightly objectionable to refer to him in that way. Any thoughts? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 04:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, The film may have been praised by the collection of 56 critics in Rotten Tomatoes, but omitting criticisms altogether does indeed make the movie appear to have been more highly appreciated (or at least, not criticized) overall than it was and therefore skews the article towards imbalance. I am not aware of any Wiki policy (please direct me to this if I am mistaken) discounting the validity of the opinions of audience members, so the >3000 opinions expressed on RT should have equal mention, particularly as films are created for audience consumption.
Wiki is about presenting both sides, even if one side is harder to find, else it appears whitewashed, and any detractions become more valuable due to their scarcity. In fact, A. O. Scott didn't even like the film (from one of the articles I read while examining the references), but the quote used (prior to my addition) made it appear that he DID like the movie, which is erroneous. I can say with all legitimacy that "there is no God", quoted directly from the Bible, with careful editing; the larger, actual quote is "The fool sayeth in his heart 'there is no God'", which changes the meaning significantly. I believe omitting the negatives from the reviews, and the summary I put at the beginning stating that the critics did indeed find the movie to be bizarre yet it had its merits in the cinematography, only enhances the truthfulness and balance of the article overall.
I thought the division of the statements from Greece vs. everywhere else were useful because the movie is from Greece, so the likelihood is naturally higher for possible favoritism, and international/everywhere else would possibly be more objective in their assessments of the film.
I will copy this into the Discussion section of the film's page to allow other editors to evaluate my logic and come to a consensus. LovelyLillith ( talk) 06:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Unless you have something constructive to say regarding an article, or a question regarding an article, I'd appreciate it if you'd stay off my talk page with your insulting rants. For the record, I never made any such claim directed to you. I said it's a game of semantics. It was a generalized statement. If you disagree that's fine, but don't presume to claim you know what I am and am not knowledgeable about. If you were insulted by my assessment of that philosophy as a semantical argument then just say so and I'll apology where necessary (if that's the article talk page then so be it) but please refrain from bringing it to my talk page. I don't know you and you don't know me and I don't need your drama on my talk page -- even if you revert your comments, I'm still stuck with the historical reminder. This is all I'll say regarding the matter, no need to respond because we're clearly at a difference of opinion regarding a lot of things. Cheers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, again. I didn't mean to revert you all the way in that first most recent revert of mine, but seeing it now, I agree with the complete revert.
I already explained the "seemingly asleep" part in my edit summary: "Seemingly asleep," I'm sure, was put there because of the debate of whether or not Rose is asleep or dead. We cannot state for certain whether or not she is asleep or dead, as even Cameron stated it is left open to interpretation even though he knows what he intended with the scene. This is why it is best to never make it seem as though she is definitely asleep or definitely dead. And because of this, that part of the plot summary has been a problem for the longest now. Some people interpret her as dreaming, while most interpretations (from what I've seen) believe she is dead; all screenwriting books mentioning Titanic in detail I have come across, for example, describe her as dead due to Jack's foreshadowing a little earlier on (about her dying an old woman, warm in her bed). I also feel "is seen" is needed to not definitively state she is reuniting with Jack.
Secondly, the fact that the central roles and love story are fictitious, while some characters are based on genuine historical figures belongs in the lead to me, and so does the fact that Gloria Stuart portrays the elderly Rose and narrates the film in a modern-day framing device. Billy Zane is also a prominent part of the film as Cal Hockley. As for Cameron seeing the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy, it seems especially relevant to mention in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the concept, and the best leads also give detail on why the story was created. In this case, since the love story is a big part of the story, it seems relevant to mention why it was created. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Although the central roles and love story are fictitious, some characters are based on genuine historical figures. Gloria Stuart portrays the elderly Rose, who narrates the film in a modern-day framing device. Cameron saw the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy.
Although the central roles and love story are fictitious, some characters are based on genuine historical figures. Cameron saw the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy.
Thanks for the comment on my Talk p., & I've read your comment on the Discussion page, tho' not the new copy in the article.
You've done a commendable job in the thread not rising to bait. Indeed I think that editors who are quite ignorant of LW need to be brought into judgment here. This article, like any other in a gen'l encycl., must be for those who know little of a topic and consult it for information.
For that reason I don't read philosophy articles in Wiki, & only in one previous case intervened, when I chanced on one about a friend & thought I sh'd supply bio. & biblio., & fix some egregious errors, as he is no longer alive. I looked at the LW only to snatch & move some bibliog. for an article I was writing, & when I did was dismayed by the lead. This thread began with my cutting the worst part (I left alone gratuitous inclusion of "Hitler"). This was not philosophical work; during this pd I was the first to fix the grammar in the Galliano article & remove "neo-Nazi" from its header line, & I know nothing of the fashion world.
I've still not read the LW article, only looked over the Russell material, so have no opinion on its balance. I can well believe that it's as you say.
I'd been about to write you here, suggesting, as you do, that our discussion with SV is probably no longer useful, due to SV's ad hominems & not responding to our suggestions that comparable Wiki articles be consulted. Repeated references to "hagiography" etc show that the article has been worked with a definite agendum in advance, to combat what SV thinks is a mistaken culture, apparently around Cambridge. This seems in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Alethe ( talk) 07:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
§ Given your comments, I subsequently scanned the full article, which I should have done earlier. In a word: "disgusting". I doubt it's redeemable by editing. It will stand as evidence for serious people who consider Wikipedia the encyclopedic equivalent of a no-pest strip. Alethe ( talk) 10:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
§ I see that the lead has been cut back again to what I attempted on 25 Feb.: good. I don't know why Eagleton is quoted there, even. i) What does he know? ii) Why sh'd the literary quality get add'l emphasis? iii) My gen'l impression is that Spinoza has been the most influential philosophers among artists, latterly Kant, with all the Greenberg stuff, also Nietzsche's back in style. Eagleton's in England--it's all conjecture. More substantively, I note the exchanges in the Edit sections, where you' ve stood ground. SV's made it clear on several occasions that there's a motive behind the existing article: to counter over-reverential attitudes toward LW, esp. at Cambridge (maybe UEA, too). But a) that's not what encycl. articles are for, as is clear from Wiki rules: "not a soapbox", "We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view." Disappointing for Wiki Administrator. So, b) given that the tabloid version of LW has been aired since most of SV's 450+ edits began on Sept 2010, & will always be retrievable, SV can write an article or book to accomplish the stated aim, while the article is made consistent with the others that we keep pointing out. One might begin that job with August 2010 version, but using valid info. in present version.
Thanks for the comment, I've seen your moniker around. I'm not an attorney, nor a Wikipedia-attorney, but do as you wish.... I think it's harmless.. true not a trailer just clips, but they are short to whet your appetite and educational and informative. The whole film is not shown. It is what it is. My best -- Luigibob ( talk) 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 21:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Reported you there. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's time we put aside whatever ill feelings we had or may still have toward each other as a result of our disputes at this article, and that we try to focus more on working together. It's clear that we're both going to be at that article for some time, and it's not healthy to engage in edit wars with each other over every little thing. One editor, as you saw, already thinks it's giving the article a bad name. We need to go back to not being so stubborn in our positions and try to see things from each other's point of view...even when it is difficult to. To get some level of respect we had for each other back. I believe that will help, and improve the working environment there again. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible after deliberation and negotiation, a majority decision may be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes.
The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edit to The Hangover (film) was changed, because only YOU think Alan Garner is nobody's friend, just because he is a little socially awkward. He has 3 friends, to say the least: Stu, Doug, and Phil. WikiLubber ( talk) 12:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion about "mathematically" on UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying is long over, and the consensus was to not have "mathematically" in that sentence, which I'm sure you are very well aware of. Re-adding it by now is nothing but vandalism. Please do not do that again. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Ring Cinema ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I invited a discussion and participated. In the course of the discussion, six different editors responded and they were split 3-3 to retain the status quo. The dissenters claim they have a consensus but this is in error. They are disrupting the orderly editing of the article and I'm preserving the status quo until a consensus emerges. OpenFuture, WalterGroaier, and Kevin McE all reverted me, so they are essentially vandalizing the page. I invited them to discuss our differences today and asked for their evidence that they had a consensus. Nothing was offered.
Decline reason:
Everybody who edit wars is certain they are in the right. Content disagreements are not vandalism; you were warned about the three-revert rule and continued to revert; hence, your block is appropriate to prevent you from continuing to edit war. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 00:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
You have already been blocked for edit warring on UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying once. Despite this you now resume the edit-warring. I suggest you drop the WP:STICK. If you continue like this you will end up blocked and finally banned, and I don't see how that would be in your interest. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ring Cinema,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the
Edit warring policy at the
Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the
noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~
NekoBot (
MeowTalk)
15:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive?
Report it!)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Ring Cinema ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
You are backing the vandals who are changing the article despite not having a consensus. Why aren't they blocked for edit warring? They made a complaint and I responded to it. I asked to have the page protected but nothing happened. Collectively, the three vandals have reverted me more than I've reverted them. This is a perverse result, to say the least. Any chance one of the admins will look at the facts so this vandalism can be prevented? Ring Cinema (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I see no vandalism; I can only see a content dispute between you and several long-term good-faith editors. When your block expires, it would be a good idea to continue the discussion on the article's talk page instead of simply trying to revert to your preferred version. Kuru (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Also, please note that referring to other good-faith editors as " vandals" is considered a personal attack.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
In addition, your failure to observe WP:NOTTHEM isn't helping you in your unblock requests. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, admins, sometimes you get it right but this time you've got it backward. It's kind of funny. See, as I mentioned, I tried the discussion with the other editors involved and when they failed to gain a consensus, they changed the page anyway. So you're defending them. So you think I should discuss with them some more? What would be the purpose of that? I told you about it, and you still got it wrong. That's your fault, admins. SarekofVulcan, you got it wrong and you're denying it. Amatulic, you got it wrong and you're making irrelevant accusations. Sorry, admins, your system failed you. What steps are you going to take to make sure you don't make this kind of mistake again? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 18:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
You obviously have no intention of trying to build consensus, and would rather nag like some kind of 1950s village school headmistress demanding an apology. Grow up or shut up. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, you are wrong. I didn't ask you to apologize and I am working toward a consensus. As you know, I offered a compromise proposal already on the page and you actually are the one who failed to respond in kind. Furthermore, I am correct that you claimed a consensus when there was not a consensus and I feel very comfortable asking you and the other two to acknowledge your future commitment to the policy on consensus that you ignored the last time. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 02:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, User:Hajatvrc is not an admin, but I may be able to assist you. You can use my talk page or use email to communicate. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
What does the record label say the title is for what is popularly known as the White Album? Steelbeard1 ( talk) 01:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
SarekOfVulcan (talk)
10:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Most of your contributions are not in the article space, so I'm far from lying. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You said "absolutely none." You are a liar. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik ( talk | contribs) 12:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Read wp:brd. If something is included and then deleted, as with your unexplained preference for indicating qualification outcome on a part of the page that deals with the situation before any match had even been scheduled, then it is incumbent on those who would include it to argue their case at the relevant talk page. Your obstinate refusal to do so is tantamount to editwarring. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. ~
Amatulić (
talk)
22:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Comments removed. Ring Cinema, you're blocked; you know what that means; appeal the block, or don't - whatever. But don't attack editors. Same for others.
Move onwards. Chzz ► 02:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, your talk page access has been revoked for personal attacks. If you want to appeal this block, please email the request to myself or unblock-en-l (that's the unblock request mailing list). Thanks, Swarm X 02:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm awaiting for you stop edit-warring and actually start the discussion justifying your changes. If you're not interested in doing so, I'll change it back to something nearer consensus. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I think on reflecion that Eva and the schoolmaster are a critical element of the movie's meaning. They are completely "normal" people who fall in love in an innocent way with apparently normal backgrounds and solid ethics. While there are other potentially sympathetic characters, everyone else ranges from dysfunctional to evil. Eva's family is important to a story full of sexual and psychological abuse by parents. Her father genuinely cares about her and the entire scenario I believe is meant to reflect what is good about people - why we do not all live in the insane village (or to raise the question of wheter we do).
Also I believe the order of events is important but a thoroughly character-based summary is appropriate. What is omitted or never solved all has meaning - not that we should interpret this for the reader, but the movie is obviosly not accidental. It is quite meticulous. Two more pennies worth of opinion on it... Obotlig ( talk) 03:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, it is true that Eva and her family can be viewed as a foil to the villagers. I might differ with you about that, though. One way to take her father is as a token of the same patriarchy or authoritarian impulse that distorts the values elsewhere. This turns on how reasonable one views his exercise of parental discretion. And then we are presented with the question of the value of romantic love. We are habituated to the elevation of personal romantic attachments above all, but this, too, is a value that deserves examination. I'm not sure if Haneke is trying to present that as a problem or not. I think that part of the power of the film is in the paradox that, although it is obvious that society is replete with problems of incipient hostility, violence, objectification, denial, etc, there is finally nothing unusual about this village. It is typical and typically perverse. Is Eva and her family an exception or the rule? I'm not sure, although it is easy to see the schoolmaster's willingness to help others as reflective of the fellow feeling that I personally find is the essence of morality. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 04:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The July 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — Peppage ( talk | contribs) 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The September 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at
User talk:Chigurgh, is considered
bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. As much as I wish for his warnings to stick and be viewable on his talk page - he is allowed to change or remove them as he sees fit. Once done - other users are not supposed to revert those edits, or edit the contributions/deletions of/by others.
Srobak (
talk)
21:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no way for us to block him, We can only ask for help since he's out of our hands. I've made a note of him at WP:AIV. Let's see what happens. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Had you read the "Production" section, you would find an appropriate mention to the stadium scene... Had I read the essay WP:HTRIV, I would not argue with you about such a minor issue...
By the way, I'am the main contributor to this article and much more than this, I'am a Huracán fan, therefore my interest in "The Secret in their Eyes" is understandable. ;) Thank you.-- Darius ( talk) 23:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I have respected your reverts for over a month without reverting. Now my version has garnered some support. Please respect other users and wait before reverting my version, the same consideration I showed you. Also since you claim my version is so poor you should have no trouble finding another editor to revert. Please keep in mind wikipedia is collective effort. Valoem talk 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
A. You repeatedly ask me what is wrong with your version and I explain it to you. Then you brush off my comments and ask again what is wrong. I have made about 10 posts regarding issues with your version. I said it does not have the proper details and is ambiguous to any reader who has not seen the film. Then you ignore that as if I didn't say anything.
B. You ask me to discuss this issue which I have for over two months. You are being disrespectful by reverting my edit when I have not been reverting yours. My patience is wearing thin. Stop your behavior.
Also please keep in mind I will no longer be discussing this issue with you as you are clearly bias. Valoem talk 15:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the
three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the
talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains
consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I watched it with Japanese subtitles so I am in no position to judge the actual dialogue. As long as there is a link to both the Jewish/Christian version as well as the Koran it seems npov... andycjp ( talk) 10:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please, at the talk page, explain why you removed that section of the text. It seemed nobody else had a problem with that besides you, and I believe those of us involved in the discussion deserve to hear your reasoning, and perhaps you could persuade the consensus.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 19:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the attention to the La Strada article. I've been concerned that we are correct about Zampano. Is he real Gypsy or would it be better to refer to him as a gypsy? I can't verify it, but I'm of the opinion that Fellini did not consider him a Gypsy, and if he's not, it's slightly objectionable to refer to him in that way. Any thoughts? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 04:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, The film may have been praised by the collection of 56 critics in Rotten Tomatoes, but omitting criticisms altogether does indeed make the movie appear to have been more highly appreciated (or at least, not criticized) overall than it was and therefore skews the article towards imbalance. I am not aware of any Wiki policy (please direct me to this if I am mistaken) discounting the validity of the opinions of audience members, so the >3000 opinions expressed on RT should have equal mention, particularly as films are created for audience consumption.
Wiki is about presenting both sides, even if one side is harder to find, else it appears whitewashed, and any detractions become more valuable due to their scarcity. In fact, A. O. Scott didn't even like the film (from one of the articles I read while examining the references), but the quote used (prior to my addition) made it appear that he DID like the movie, which is erroneous. I can say with all legitimacy that "there is no God", quoted directly from the Bible, with careful editing; the larger, actual quote is "The fool sayeth in his heart 'there is no God'", which changes the meaning significantly. I believe omitting the negatives from the reviews, and the summary I put at the beginning stating that the critics did indeed find the movie to be bizarre yet it had its merits in the cinematography, only enhances the truthfulness and balance of the article overall.
I thought the division of the statements from Greece vs. everywhere else were useful because the movie is from Greece, so the likelihood is naturally higher for possible favoritism, and international/everywhere else would possibly be more objective in their assessments of the film.
I will copy this into the Discussion section of the film's page to allow other editors to evaluate my logic and come to a consensus. LovelyLillith ( talk) 06:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Unless you have something constructive to say regarding an article, or a question regarding an article, I'd appreciate it if you'd stay off my talk page with your insulting rants. For the record, I never made any such claim directed to you. I said it's a game of semantics. It was a generalized statement. If you disagree that's fine, but don't presume to claim you know what I am and am not knowledgeable about. If you were insulted by my assessment of that philosophy as a semantical argument then just say so and I'll apology where necessary (if that's the article talk page then so be it) but please refrain from bringing it to my talk page. I don't know you and you don't know me and I don't need your drama on my talk page -- even if you revert your comments, I'm still stuck with the historical reminder. This is all I'll say regarding the matter, no need to respond because we're clearly at a difference of opinion regarding a lot of things. Cheers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, again. I didn't mean to revert you all the way in that first most recent revert of mine, but seeing it now, I agree with the complete revert.
I already explained the "seemingly asleep" part in my edit summary: "Seemingly asleep," I'm sure, was put there because of the debate of whether or not Rose is asleep or dead. We cannot state for certain whether or not she is asleep or dead, as even Cameron stated it is left open to interpretation even though he knows what he intended with the scene. This is why it is best to never make it seem as though she is definitely asleep or definitely dead. And because of this, that part of the plot summary has been a problem for the longest now. Some people interpret her as dreaming, while most interpretations (from what I've seen) believe she is dead; all screenwriting books mentioning Titanic in detail I have come across, for example, describe her as dead due to Jack's foreshadowing a little earlier on (about her dying an old woman, warm in her bed). I also feel "is seen" is needed to not definitively state she is reuniting with Jack.
Secondly, the fact that the central roles and love story are fictitious, while some characters are based on genuine historical figures belongs in the lead to me, and so does the fact that Gloria Stuart portrays the elderly Rose and narrates the film in a modern-day framing device. Billy Zane is also a prominent part of the film as Cal Hockley. As for Cameron seeing the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy, it seems especially relevant to mention in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the concept, and the best leads also give detail on why the story was created. In this case, since the love story is a big part of the story, it seems relevant to mention why it was created. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Although the central roles and love story are fictitious, some characters are based on genuine historical figures. Gloria Stuart portrays the elderly Rose, who narrates the film in a modern-day framing device. Cameron saw the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy.
Although the central roles and love story are fictitious, some characters are based on genuine historical figures. Cameron saw the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy.
Thanks for the comment on my Talk p., & I've read your comment on the Discussion page, tho' not the new copy in the article.
You've done a commendable job in the thread not rising to bait. Indeed I think that editors who are quite ignorant of LW need to be brought into judgment here. This article, like any other in a gen'l encycl., must be for those who know little of a topic and consult it for information.
For that reason I don't read philosophy articles in Wiki, & only in one previous case intervened, when I chanced on one about a friend & thought I sh'd supply bio. & biblio., & fix some egregious errors, as he is no longer alive. I looked at the LW only to snatch & move some bibliog. for an article I was writing, & when I did was dismayed by the lead. This thread began with my cutting the worst part (I left alone gratuitous inclusion of "Hitler"). This was not philosophical work; during this pd I was the first to fix the grammar in the Galliano article & remove "neo-Nazi" from its header line, & I know nothing of the fashion world.
I've still not read the LW article, only looked over the Russell material, so have no opinion on its balance. I can well believe that it's as you say.
I'd been about to write you here, suggesting, as you do, that our discussion with SV is probably no longer useful, due to SV's ad hominems & not responding to our suggestions that comparable Wiki articles be consulted. Repeated references to "hagiography" etc show that the article has been worked with a definite agendum in advance, to combat what SV thinks is a mistaken culture, apparently around Cambridge. This seems in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Alethe ( talk) 07:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
§ Given your comments, I subsequently scanned the full article, which I should have done earlier. In a word: "disgusting". I doubt it's redeemable by editing. It will stand as evidence for serious people who consider Wikipedia the encyclopedic equivalent of a no-pest strip. Alethe ( talk) 10:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
§ I see that the lead has been cut back again to what I attempted on 25 Feb.: good. I don't know why Eagleton is quoted there, even. i) What does he know? ii) Why sh'd the literary quality get add'l emphasis? iii) My gen'l impression is that Spinoza has been the most influential philosophers among artists, latterly Kant, with all the Greenberg stuff, also Nietzsche's back in style. Eagleton's in England--it's all conjecture. More substantively, I note the exchanges in the Edit sections, where you' ve stood ground. SV's made it clear on several occasions that there's a motive behind the existing article: to counter over-reverential attitudes toward LW, esp. at Cambridge (maybe UEA, too). But a) that's not what encycl. articles are for, as is clear from Wiki rules: "not a soapbox", "We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view." Disappointing for Wiki Administrator. So, b) given that the tabloid version of LW has been aired since most of SV's 450+ edits began on Sept 2010, & will always be retrievable, SV can write an article or book to accomplish the stated aim, while the article is made consistent with the others that we keep pointing out. One might begin that job with August 2010 version, but using valid info. in present version.
Thanks for the comment, I've seen your moniker around. I'm not an attorney, nor a Wikipedia-attorney, but do as you wish.... I think it's harmless.. true not a trailer just clips, but they are short to whet your appetite and educational and informative. The whole film is not shown. It is what it is. My best -- Luigibob ( talk) 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 21:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Reported you there. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's time we put aside whatever ill feelings we had or may still have toward each other as a result of our disputes at this article, and that we try to focus more on working together. It's clear that we're both going to be at that article for some time, and it's not healthy to engage in edit wars with each other over every little thing. One editor, as you saw, already thinks it's giving the article a bad name. We need to go back to not being so stubborn in our positions and try to see things from each other's point of view...even when it is difficult to. To get some level of respect we had for each other back. I believe that will help, and improve the working environment there again. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible after deliberation and negotiation, a majority decision may be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes.
The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edit to The Hangover (film) was changed, because only YOU think Alan Garner is nobody's friend, just because he is a little socially awkward. He has 3 friends, to say the least: Stu, Doug, and Phil. WikiLubber ( talk) 12:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion about "mathematically" on UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying is long over, and the consensus was to not have "mathematically" in that sentence, which I'm sure you are very well aware of. Re-adding it by now is nothing but vandalism. Please do not do that again. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Ring Cinema ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I invited a discussion and participated. In the course of the discussion, six different editors responded and they were split 3-3 to retain the status quo. The dissenters claim they have a consensus but this is in error. They are disrupting the orderly editing of the article and I'm preserving the status quo until a consensus emerges. OpenFuture, WalterGroaier, and Kevin McE all reverted me, so they are essentially vandalizing the page. I invited them to discuss our differences today and asked for their evidence that they had a consensus. Nothing was offered.
Decline reason:
Everybody who edit wars is certain they are in the right. Content disagreements are not vandalism; you were warned about the three-revert rule and continued to revert; hence, your block is appropriate to prevent you from continuing to edit war. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 00:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
You have already been blocked for edit warring on UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying once. Despite this you now resume the edit-warring. I suggest you drop the WP:STICK. If you continue like this you will end up blocked and finally banned, and I don't see how that would be in your interest. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ring Cinema,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the
Edit warring policy at the
Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the
noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~
NekoBot (
MeowTalk)
15:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive?
Report it!)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Ring Cinema ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
You are backing the vandals who are changing the article despite not having a consensus. Why aren't they blocked for edit warring? They made a complaint and I responded to it. I asked to have the page protected but nothing happened. Collectively, the three vandals have reverted me more than I've reverted them. This is a perverse result, to say the least. Any chance one of the admins will look at the facts so this vandalism can be prevented? Ring Cinema (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I see no vandalism; I can only see a content dispute between you and several long-term good-faith editors. When your block expires, it would be a good idea to continue the discussion on the article's talk page instead of simply trying to revert to your preferred version. Kuru (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Also, please note that referring to other good-faith editors as " vandals" is considered a personal attack.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
In addition, your failure to observe WP:NOTTHEM isn't helping you in your unblock requests. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, admins, sometimes you get it right but this time you've got it backward. It's kind of funny. See, as I mentioned, I tried the discussion with the other editors involved and when they failed to gain a consensus, they changed the page anyway. So you're defending them. So you think I should discuss with them some more? What would be the purpose of that? I told you about it, and you still got it wrong. That's your fault, admins. SarekofVulcan, you got it wrong and you're denying it. Amatulic, you got it wrong and you're making irrelevant accusations. Sorry, admins, your system failed you. What steps are you going to take to make sure you don't make this kind of mistake again? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 18:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
You obviously have no intention of trying to build consensus, and would rather nag like some kind of 1950s village school headmistress demanding an apology. Grow up or shut up. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, you are wrong. I didn't ask you to apologize and I am working toward a consensus. As you know, I offered a compromise proposal already on the page and you actually are the one who failed to respond in kind. Furthermore, I am correct that you claimed a consensus when there was not a consensus and I feel very comfortable asking you and the other two to acknowledge your future commitment to the policy on consensus that you ignored the last time. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 02:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, User:Hajatvrc is not an admin, but I may be able to assist you. You can use my talk page or use email to communicate. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
What does the record label say the title is for what is popularly known as the White Album? Steelbeard1 ( talk) 01:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
SarekOfVulcan (talk)
10:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Most of your contributions are not in the article space, so I'm far from lying. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You said "absolutely none." You are a liar. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik ( talk | contribs) 12:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Read wp:brd. If something is included and then deleted, as with your unexplained preference for indicating qualification outcome on a part of the page that deals with the situation before any match had even been scheduled, then it is incumbent on those who would include it to argue their case at the relevant talk page. Your obstinate refusal to do so is tantamount to editwarring. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. ~
Amatulić (
talk)
22:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Comments removed. Ring Cinema, you're blocked; you know what that means; appeal the block, or don't - whatever. But don't attack editors. Same for others.
Move onwards. Chzz ► 02:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, your talk page access has been revoked for personal attacks. If you want to appeal this block, please email the request to myself or unblock-en-l (that's the unblock request mailing list). Thanks, Swarm X 02:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm awaiting for you stop edit-warring and actually start the discussion justifying your changes. If you're not interested in doing so, I'll change it back to something nearer consensus. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I think on reflecion that Eva and the schoolmaster are a critical element of the movie's meaning. They are completely "normal" people who fall in love in an innocent way with apparently normal backgrounds and solid ethics. While there are other potentially sympathetic characters, everyone else ranges from dysfunctional to evil. Eva's family is important to a story full of sexual and psychological abuse by parents. Her father genuinely cares about her and the entire scenario I believe is meant to reflect what is good about people - why we do not all live in the insane village (or to raise the question of wheter we do).
Also I believe the order of events is important but a thoroughly character-based summary is appropriate. What is omitted or never solved all has meaning - not that we should interpret this for the reader, but the movie is obviosly not accidental. It is quite meticulous. Two more pennies worth of opinion on it... Obotlig ( talk) 03:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, it is true that Eva and her family can be viewed as a foil to the villagers. I might differ with you about that, though. One way to take her father is as a token of the same patriarchy or authoritarian impulse that distorts the values elsewhere. This turns on how reasonable one views his exercise of parental discretion. And then we are presented with the question of the value of romantic love. We are habituated to the elevation of personal romantic attachments above all, but this, too, is a value that deserves examination. I'm not sure if Haneke is trying to present that as a problem or not. I think that part of the power of the film is in the paradox that, although it is obvious that society is replete with problems of incipient hostility, violence, objectification, denial, etc, there is finally nothing unusual about this village. It is typical and typically perverse. Is Eva and her family an exception or the rule? I'm not sure, although it is easy to see the schoolmaster's willingness to help others as reflective of the fellow feeling that I personally find is the essence of morality. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 04:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The July 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — Peppage ( talk | contribs) 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)