Talk:Black Swan (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Principal photography

  • Delete for now by virtue of WP:NFF which states: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". As of yet, there are no reliable sources confirming commencement of principal photography so the film clearly fails NFF. (JerzeyHellboy (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC))
I redirected the article to Darren Aronofsky. He has several projects in consideration, and there is no indication that he will go with this one. Even if he wants to, the start of filming is the proper threshold to have a stand-alone article because the resources are fully invested into the film's production. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I restored the article. Filming is now underway and very likely to be released. Erik (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Writing credits

The January 2007 article from Variety mentions that director Darren Aronofsky was attached to direct and that John McLaughlin was attached to write. It also said that the two proposed an outline for Black Swan that led to the film's fast-tracking. However, the November 2009 article from The Hollywood Reporter said that Andres Heinz wrote the original screenplay and that Mark Heyman wrote the final screenplay. McLaughlin was not mentioned. He has been mentioned in passing in this month's group of "first look" articles, but this film information, apparently directly from the studio, credits only Heinz and Heyman. I changed the article to leave out McLaughlin for the time being until we can determine his involvement. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The poster for Black Swan credits all three writers, so I have now adjusted the article to reflect that. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Image

If we can add critical commentary about the film's makeup and costume design of Portman's character, we could use this from USA Today in the article body. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This provides a lot of screen caps from the trailer. One of the screen caps could be used to illustrate critical commentary as we continue expanding this article up to and through the film's release. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Release date

Regarding Black Swan's release date(s), we should include the most relevant release date. Film festival screenings at Venice and TIFF are isolated events, where the release in December is a release for public consumption. We can obviously provide details for all showings involved in the article body, but if we consider this film with a historical perspective, the date it was made available to the public is the most relevant. For example, Fight Club (film) is over ten years old, and the sole release date frequently cited in its references is the public release, not its own premiere in Venice. This is an opportunity to keep the infobox simple and not have a second release date with a link that violates WP:EGG (referring to use of "Venice"). It is overly strict to define a release date as a screening that will remain mostly irrelevant to the public. The most relevant release date should be the date the film becomes available, entering the public sphere. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FILMRELEASE#Release_dates states otherwise (IE festival date AND general date). Why is this film a special exception? Lugnuts (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
If you look at older films, release dates are often straightforward. Nowadays, with current films, we engage in release date porn. (I'm kind of doing that now with additional film festivals in the article body.) However, the infobox needs to be a summary. Multiple release dates are understandable if they are clustered together around the same time. However, here, if we ask ourselves, if we had to choose one release date for Black Swan, what would it be? It would be the date of its general release, the date it entered contention, the date it became available to the public. The Venice film festival screening is detailed in the body, but its preceding date is more of a teaser. The singular release date, which has a lot of especially prominent milestones attached to it, is the right choice to include in the infobox. At this point, anticipation is clearly being built up for December, which indicates the prominence of that particular release. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Headlines

Headlines. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception

Screen Daily and The Hollywood Reporter are currently sampled in the "Critical reception" section. Here are additional reviews:

There is a review from In Contention, but it appears too bloggish in nature. I recommend not including it; there will be additional reviews from more prominent publications. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive of Variety review, normally behind paywall. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Production and development

Just stumbled across this 4 minute video that talks about the set design for the actual ballet in the film. I'm not sure if it's available someplace better than youtube but there's some good stuff in there about the director wanting to work with that particular designer and the thoughts they put into the aesthetics. Millahnna (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Casting

And an amusing headline about Winona Ryder related to the movie. Millahnna (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Seperate awards page

Awards season has barely even began and the awards table is very large. With the Golden Globes tomorrow and the SAGs on Sunday I would suggest making a seperate page for it's award listing. I think it's safe to say it's going to be a Oscar player this year. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I support a separate page for listing awards. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cast Table

What's the justification for using a table in this instance? Thought I'd ask before I removed it since it isn't imparting any extra information that is easier to see when divided into columns. Millahnna (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to my invisible table or Tamariki's standard table? I find the standard table to be unaesthetic for the presentation of two columns, where the invisible table formatting helps line up both actors' names and characters' names. It's not formatting I would normally use, but only in articles that are well-maintained. For example, if it was an underdeveloped article about a film with a long way to go, a regular bullet list would be appropriate for easy editing. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The standard table; it's an eyesore of unneeded-ness (pretend that's a word) that I see you've switched out since I originally asked. The invisible table looks fine to me and helps distinguish the list from the casting information directly below it. I was going to switch it back to just a bulleted list myself because I haven't gotten the hang of tables in the slightest. But the invisible one is just ducky. Millahnna (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the cast table, MOS:FILM does not require use of a bulleted list. In general, a bulleted list is encouraged because it is easy for all editors to work with. However, here we have a set number of actors and roles, and prose about them is separated from the list. With the wikitable, the names of both actors and roles can be appropriately lined up. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Place of Psychology in Article

This movie (being a psychological thriller) featured a main character with a complex psychology. I've written an amateur psychological analysis, but don't know how to integrate it in the article. I feel this must be an important aspect of the film worthy of being discussed in the article. Anyways, here the analysis of Nina Sayers:

Suffers from bulimia nervosa (an eating disorder) and a tendency for deliberate self-harm.

Displays symptoms of schizoid personality disorder (SPD) including: (1) lack of desire for close relationships, (2) prefererence for solitary activity, (3) little, if any, sexual experiences with another person, (4) taking pleasure in few, if any, activities, (5) lacking of close friends or confidants other than immediate family, (6) emotional coldness, (7) limited capacity to express emotion, and (8) preoccupation with fantasy. Suffers from severe sexual repression as well as a schizoid sexuality (defined by a fear of intimacy with another person and subsequent preference for masturbation).

Later, develops symptoms of psychosis (primarily hallucinations and delusions), with length and severity of these symptoms seemingly worsening over time. (Though it should be noted that drug use and sleep deprivation can augment psychotic behavior, the both of which Nina was exposed.) --Porsche997SBS (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, so we need to use secondary sources to discuss the psychology in the film. Since the film was recently released, I do not think these sources will be forthcoming right away. Publications by academics take some time, though psychology magazines could be checked for any preliminary articles about the topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ballet Scene Photo

I have edited the caption for this photo as the previous caption erroneously described the photo as being of the scene in which the white swan transforms into the black swan. This is not something that happens in the ballet. Rather, the photo is of the ball in which Odile (the black swan) tricks and seduces the prince. Prtwhitley (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Plot

Does anybody object to the re-telling of the entire movie posted under the Synopsis section -- now under Plot -- by 96.227.237.45? I don't want to revert back to the former one-paragraph length one without some validation, as I don't want to step on toes and/or break any rules, but the Synopsis right now is simply WAY too informative, gives away the entire film and in my view needs to be cut significantly. Aphrodite7717 (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to the shorter version. Plot summaries are supposed to be concise as part of the real-world coverage of the fictional work. Here is the revision in case anyone wants to use it for guidance. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I personally liked the longer summary. This movie had a lot going on and I don't think a short summary would convey all the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.21.14 (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
A plot summary in a Wikipedia article is supposed to be concise and to be part of a fictional work's real-world coverage. A Wikipedia article about a film is not supposed to explain everything that happened in the film, but to provide a solid overview so readers not familiar with the film can understand the context of the article's real-world coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the VERY detailed plot summary again yesterday to the shorter version, before I read this. I agreed with Eric's point. The purpose of a plot summary is just that. A summary. It is not necessary to give out every detail of the story. Just as Eric said. In addition, going by the wiki standards, a long, detailed plot that tells every aspect of the story is too long for the standard and requires editing to fit within the standard.Fsm83 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Reading over the current plot summary, the length is questionable. However, a bigger concern I have is that several plot elements are interpretations rather than plot summary.Luminum (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Plot Summary

A bit of someone's revision to the ending was inaccurate...namely, Thomas did not rush to her side and ask her what she did to herself. He and the rest of the cast went back to congratulate her. Thomas told her that the audience loved her and she needed to go out and take a bow. He then pulled back a few feet and it was only then that he and the cast saw her apparent bloodstain. She wasn't "gushing blood" at least in my view but rather the lower part of her costume was soaked in it.

Is the Morgellons reference really necessary? I seriously doubt that's what the filmmakers intended for that scene. It's just a visual metaphor for her serious mental issues and increasing obsession with the role. If that reference is going to be there, at least find a citation somewhere from someone involved in the creation of the film confirming specifically that the scene in question is meant to depict her having Morgellons. Otherwise, it's just someone's personal interpretation of that scene, and doesn't really have a place in the article. 69.59.109.60 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)matt

Correction Needed

In the seventh paragraph of the Plot section it states "When she returns home, she goes into the kitchen and turns on the light. She hears whispering and turns the light back on." Either the first or second sentence must be incorrect. Lawblogger18 (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Black Swan Controversy Removed

Wikipedia:Verifiability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaroman (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves Policy shortcuts: WP:ABOUTSELF WP:SELFPUB

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaroman (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The sources are not self-published, do not involve claims directly related to the source, and do not have doubtful authenticity. If you disagree, please provide details, not just a quotation of Wikipedia policy. Cresix (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The Independent, is not self-published. Living persons being quoted about their own self-publishing is very different from using a self-published source in the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about the independent being not self-published. However, clothesonfilm (source 30), is a self-published blog, and thus wikipedia verifiability rules apply. Therefore, the following should removed:

"Westcott challenged that view and stated that in all only 7 costumes, among them the black and white swan, had been created in a collaboration between Rodarte, Westcott, and Aronofsky. Furthermore, the corps ballet's costumes were designed by Zack Brown (for the American Ballet Theater), and slightly adapted by Westcott and her costume design department. Westcott said: "Controversy is too complimentary a word for two people using their considerable self-publicising resources to loudly complain about their credit once they realized how good the film is."(30)

Please respond. Thank you. Camaroman (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)camaroman

First, a housekeeping matter. Don't remove your previous comments (except for minor copyedits), especially if others have responded. It makes the discussion disjointed and sometimes incomprehensible. You are entitled to change your edits, but please be courteous to other readers and editors. I took the liberty of restoring your original edit, then added your new comments after the responses.
Now, clothesonfilm is not a self-published blog, and certainly the interview with Amy Westcott is not a blog; it is an interview. If you have reason to believe that someone has faked an interview with her, please provide the evidence. Otherwise this information is legitimate, especially when there is an additional source in the section. Even primary sources are not forbidden; it is just better to supplement with additional sources. Interviews and information derived from them are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. The paragraph you quote above reflects Westcott's ideas. If you think they don't, please find another basis for your argument besides claiming that a legitimate interview is off-limits as a self-published blog. Westcott didn't publish it. Cresix (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraphs

It seems to me that the all of the second paragraph and most of the third paragraph of the introduction are making uncited claims. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there should be some sources attached to claims such as "Aronofsky cites Fyodor Dostoyevsky's "The Double" as another inspiration for the film," right? (Note: This claim appears again later in the article, and there is no source cited here either.) Webster100 (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Should be cited at least later on. You can add a {{Citation needed}} tag. I'd not remove such information without giving people a fair chance to find references. Debresser (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks, I've added some {{Citation needed}} tags. And just to make sure I did it correctly, I should have added those to information outside of the introduction, correct? Webster100 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the "citation needed" tags; there is already a citation for the first three sentences of the first paragraph in "Conception". We just do not need to put a reference tag after every sentence but after the last one that uses the reference. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Name of the male lead

I seem to read somewhere that Thomas's name is given as Tomas. Which one is correct? Shuipzv3 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

According to IMDB its "Thomas". Lawblogger18 (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Although his name is "Thomas," it is pronounced in the French manner and sounds like "To-MAH." PROSA (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) PROSA

Movie poster

There seems to be some difference in opinion as to what should appear as the main picture in the infobox. Vogueitalia added a new poster. Fsm83 removed it saying that the earlier poster was the poster. Vogueitalia put it back (always without any explanation). Thbotch removed it without explanation and Vogueitalia put it back. Frankly, I don't get it. Isn't there often more than one poster for a film? How is anyone (like me) supposed to figure out who's right on this issue? I'd appreciate it if someone would explain so we can stop this game of bouncing pictures.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Vogueitalia should be a little more talkative. But frankly, her poster is gorgeous. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
LOL, that doesn't really answer my question, and it's not really her poster, but I agree with you - it looks great. Unfortunately, that in and of itself doesn't mean it belongs here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I left her a message on her talkpage to come here. The problem is that if she adds the poster again, she'll be blocked per the three-revert-rule. Btw, I say her, because ever since I learned Latin, words or names ending with an "-a" are female to me. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I almost reverted again, but I won't play the edit war game on this. My position is that the poster that was originally up is the poster release that was used when the film was first released, and should be the poster that represents the article. I admit I also like the first poster better, but my intention was putting up the poster that WAS the theatrical release when the film was released. I would have no problem putting this other poster somewhere else in the article, but it should not be at the top. But that's my opinion, and if I'm in the minority that is fine.Fsm83 (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need two posters in the article, so we just have to decide which one to keep. You're more knowledgeable about this sort of thing than I am. How do you know the first poster was the one that was used on first release?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I am a bit of a film geek, I admit it. :) And I do follow these things....Prior to release, and during the initial release of the film, the original poster that was up, was the only "official" poster for the film. There was some other cool cover art that was created by others, but as far as the "official" poster release that Fox Searchlight used, that was it. For further proof here is a link to the Los Angeles AFI premiere of the film that was held back in November http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/env-black-swan-afi-premiere-pictures,0,1619404.photogallery - as you can see in the image the "offical" poster for the film was used. The poster that is now up was not created until much later to help push advertising, but it was not the offical movie poster release. If nothing else, if the poster currently up is going to be used, the wording underneath should be changed, as it is not the theatrical poster that was used for the release. Fsm83 (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I can understand the emotional value attached to the original theatrical release poster. And the value of archiving historical information. On the other hand, if the main point of the poster here on Wikipedia is to illustrate, then the new poster is fulfills that function better. Debresser (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I am curious as to why you think this poster fulfills that function better? I can understand if you just like it better, that is fine. But I don't see how it illustrates better.Fsm83 (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
That's what I meant. Debresser (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I prefer Thbotch's File:Black Swan poster.jpg to the current image. I don't see any reason why both cannot be included. — goethean ॐ 00:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this discussion since no one mentioned it in their edit summary, which is pretty simple. Thanks to Debreeser for letting me know. I also left a warning on User:Vogueitalia page after I reverted his third time adding his uploaded poster. I think we should leave it with the original theatrical release poster, that's what the theaters used, the DVD, and websites about the film. That poster is what identifies the film. The alternative poster could be added in the prose, with a good fair-use rationale (or it will not pass to FA, or perhaps even GA). —Mike Allen 09:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Based on Fsm83's and Mike's comments, I'm content to have the "original" poster. I am against using the second poster as an addition. I find it very hard to fight non-free use of images on Wikipedia (if the image is not also on Commons). Unless an image file qualifies for speedy deletion, the process of having an image removed is cumbersome here at best and often ineffective (at Commons it is really efficient).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Something to add

Interns suing filmmakers See http://www.avclub.com/articles/unpaid-interns-suing-makers-of-black-swan-over-the,62505/ I don't have the time or wherewithal to add this, but I want this article to continue to be comprehensive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ref in plot summary?

Debresser - Why are you restoring a ref in the plot summary that clearly does not belong there? The ref in question is nothing more than a review of the film. Any mention of critical reception, including reviews, belongs in a separate section devoted to that subject, NOT in the PS. In your edit summary you state "If you don't understand why it is needed (because you didn't look at the talkpage) don't VANDALISE!". Where in Talk is there a discussion about, let alone a consensus for, including a movie review as a ref in the plot summary? Shirtwaist ☎ 22:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Because whether in the last sentence it should be "It" or "I" has been the subject of several reverts, and this is the source that the current version is the correct one. See also Talk:Black_Swan_(film)#Last_Line. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
How, exactly, is a reviewer's interpretation of what is said - if that's what "If it does that, and not focus on weight loss or self-destruction, then we all win and can say, 'It was perfect.' " even means - in any way relevant to what appears in the PS? If you're looking for a source that establishes what the line is, which would be unnecessary in the face of a pre-existing consensus concerning that line (which is now in place since you and I agree on what the line is), that source is definitely not "the correct one". Even if you presented the final shooting script as proof of what was said, that would still not be "proof" of what appears onscreen, as actors and directors commonly diverge slightly from the words on a page anyway.
Plot summaries are considered primary sources, and as such do not usually require refs, unless, as WP:FILMPLOT states: "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section. If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." This exception has nothing at all to do with this situation, though. What exactly a line is as spoken by an actor (though including dialog in plot summaries is discouraged) is either determined by hearing the line, or if the line is unclear, it is excluded from the PS and gone into in an "Interpretation" section along with sources discussing it. We don't do that by placing in the PS a random reviewer's opinion of what might have been said.
In any event, the last contentious edit about this occurred over two months ago, and since we have now established a consensus regarding the line, any further attempts to change it will have to establish a new consensus to do so, so a ref is superfluous and needs to go. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the reference does not belong in the Plot section, particularly given the ambiguity of the reference itself, as noted by Shirtwaist.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by "ambiguity of the reference". And the fact that there hasn't been any edits to that line is probably in part due to the fact that it is referenced. If you want to try to remove it, that's fine with me, but it is likely the line will be contested again, and the reference (or any other reference with the correct text) will have to be re-added. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I doubt the ref would stop anyone who believed they were sure about the line from changing it, as all they would have to do is make the same argument I did about the relevance of the source. For example, it's unclear what the reviewer means by including the line "It was perfect" because the context in her review seems to indicate an unfavorable comparison she's making of Black Swan to another film and real ballet in general, and nowhere does she say "This is what she actually said". The only way to say definitively what someone actually says in a film is to listen to it and decide what they're saying. I know of no other "correct" source for something like that, other than a statement by the actors themselves.
But like I said, we now have a consensus of two (three if Bbb23 agrees) which will be much more of a disincentive for anyone trying to change it in the future than any citation would be. Shirtwaist ☎ 03:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


Plot edited endlessly

Of all the film articles I have on my watchlist, this one stands out by the fact that its plot section is being edited endlessly, and with major edits. Debresser (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and many of the edits add length to an already overlong plot section. See WP:FILMPLOT.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Lane edits twice reverted without justification

Sarah Lane's views on the ballerina controversy are both relevant and sourced. Please provide a good argument against quoting her view without disparaging her as a 'disgruntled ballerina'. As she was the dance double at the centre of the controversy, her views on the subject are relevant. ABC News is a good source. Saint91 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Even though I don't like reading that somebody calls somebody else a liar, I have to agree that the quote seems relevant. Perhaps instead of quoting it could be rephrased? Perhaps that would make it more palatable. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Something like "Lane praised Portman as an actress, but said that it would have been pretty much impossible to become a professional ballerina in a year and half, and that the film-makers had intentionally created the image that Portman had done her own dancing." Debresser (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be preferable to the complete lack of information in this article regarding Sarah Lane's views. However, Wikipedia should not be censored - it should not shy away from stating the facts as they are.

The fact is that Sarah Lane did accuse the film-makers of lying and these accusations are at the very heart of the controversy. Whether we like it or not, her position as the dance double makes her views worthy of report. Saint91 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading the article makes me cringe as it reads like a spiteful accusation by someone who didn't get the credit she felt she deserved. I don't even think Debresser's more temperate rewording should be in the article. The accusation is published in a reliable source, but it comes closer to being a WP:SPS in this context and therefore unacceptable as a BLP violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Bbb23 in the sense that Lane's comments are offered in great detail on the link to the controversy. It is not necessary to add anything more to the summary in the article. Aronofsky also went into great detail denying the charge and just because the body double stated her claim does not make her feelings more accurate or justified. Again all of those details are available in the link to the controversy. Fsm83 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23 - Once again, we don't censor Wikipedia because there are things we find "spiteful" or not "nice". Wikipedia attempts to be objective, and report the facts as they are. The fact is that these claims were made by someone who featured in the film and is at the centre of the controversy itself. An interview with ABC News is in no way a self-published source. Therefore WP:SPS does not apply.

@Fsm83 - It doesn't matter that the link contains the relevant content, otherwise Wikipedia articles could be reduced to a bunch of links. The article itself must provide some summary of her views too.

Then it would stand to reason that you would have to also include a summary of both views of Aronofsky and Benjamin as well. Fsm83 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I don't have any problem with that. But that would be a reason to add to the article - it does not justify reversion. Saint91 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As I'm failing to see sufficient rationale for the reverts (please see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary / WP:ROWN), I have requested dispute resolution. Saint91 (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No reference to mother-daughter abuse?

When I watched the movie I thought it was pretty clear that Nina's mother sexually abused her, and that that was the triggering reason for her troubled mind. But I found it surprising to say the least that there is no mention of that critical part of the plot anywhere in the Wikipedia article. The reasons to believe so are already mentioned in several websites (Google search), so I think there is no point in listing them here. Maybe it is a total misread from my part, and therefore should not be cited in the article, as it would be original research. But I think it is a very important part of the plot (in fact I think it is key to understanding why Nina behaves the way she does) it should at least be mentioned somewhere in the article. Are any of the websites that come up in the Google search suitable for citation? And what do you think about the mother-daughter abuse references in the film? 201.250.169.109 (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If by "abuse" you mean that she is an overly dominating mother, then I would agree. Anything else is not supported by content of the film, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I meant sexual abuse. IMO there are clear references in the film to support this. It's been quite long since I watched it, but off the top of my head: the scene where the mother is wearing a dress and asks Nina "are you ready for me?" when she is in her bed (ready for what? why does Nina pretend to be asleep?); the scene where the mother wants to touch Nina and take out her clothes with the excuse of taking a look the scratches in Nina's back, the fact that Nina reacts violently to that, and the way her mother tries to get rid of Nina's friend when she interrupts them (what was she trying to do with her daughter?); the constant feeling of paranoia and lack of privacy from her mother that Nina experiencies throughout the film. Those are the ones I remember now; but there are probably more references. Of cource, I could be totally wrong. Maybe I'm reading too much within the lines; but I think the plot makes much more sence if you consider the possibility that Nina's mother is abusing her. 201.250.177.216 (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This is all very interesting. I hadn't paid attention to all these things. If you could find some source saying the same thing, I think you could add this to the article, and that would be a valuable contribution. Debresser (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The link you provided only lists non-credible sources speculating on their own interpretations of the film. I've never seen any critical reviews or other professional commentary take that stance, and I don't think it adds any context to the film. Its simply more logical that Nina's mother is imprinting herself onto her daughter (as a number of parent who push their children into entertainment often do) - attempting to live out her own failed aspiration through Nina, her stardom, her perfect physique, and avoiding sexual conduct she would not normally engage in (dating boys rather than devoting herself to her art, lesbian affairs etc). Of course, without reliable sources, none of this merits entry into the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Horror genre

For a long time, editors tried to insert horror as a genre for the film in the lead. Other editors disagreed and removed it. Then, a very clever editor found a video by the director in which he clearly said it was a "psychological thriller horror film" (I know he said "thriller horror" and I believe he also said psychological but am not 100% certain without watching it again). I watched it. So, the article was sourced to the video, and other editors started removing the word horror and the source. I've been restoring the word horror each time.

Now, we have another (more experienced) editor who claims the source is unreliable per WP:SOURCES because it's "promotional" and reverted. I don't care if it's promotional or not. It's the description of the director of the film. Now, if we're going to insist on a more secondary source than the video, i.e., a newspaper critic or something like that, then we might as well throw out the genres in most of the film articles as they are rarely sourced. And certainly the current description (without the word horror) is not sourced.

I'm not going to edit-war over something this silly, but if others have a view on the issue, they can express it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think any source where the director of the film makes such a clear statement must be considered an acceptable source, including according to Wikipedia rules and standards. I am one of those who reverted the horror description for a long time, partially based on the fact that it wasn't sourced and partially because after viewing the film I would not describe it as horror, but ever since it is sourced, I stopped my reverts. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Director's can describe a film all they want, but it's up to third party sources for wikipedia. The director of The Vanishing says the film doesn't really belong to any genre, so should it not be included? The second source is from a promotional material about a film that had not been released yet. I think it would be better to take them from third-party sources rather than promotional videos. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, most film articles have NO sourcing for genre (along with lots of other "facts"). Here, we have two sources, both of them acceptable and reliable, regardless of your spin on them. If you want to find other sources, go ahead, but even assuming you do, you're going to no doubt find conflicts over material this subjective, and then what?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I just looked at the article as I hadn't realized you had again changed the genre. Stop doing that unless you can obtain a consensus for your position.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was a discussion happening at the time. All articles need sources and it is WRONG for them to not. I've stated my reasons why those citations do not work while you have not contested it well enough. Per WP:V, articles have to be based on "third-party, published sources". Not directors own opinions. The second one is an article on a film without having seen it. This is not as notable as an actual film review post-premiere. If there are no further points for these articles, I'll revert it back in a few days.Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I've opened a thread on WP:RSN based on my understanding of your views.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Drama film

This source [1] considers Black Swan a drama film. 201.68.196.25 (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

They call it a showbiz drama and predominantly refer to it as a thriller. we don't have a category for showbiz drama so I wouldn't put it in. Also, stop IP hopping. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Initial Comments

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Swan (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jennie | ☎ 10:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Lead
  •  Done
  • Plot
  •  Done
  • Cast
  •  Done
  • Production
  • Under the Costume design section, the article reads "in article in the British The Independent" could this be changed to read British newspaper/broadsheet?
As this the only problem in the whole article, I added in 'newspaper'. Jennie | ☎ 10:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Release
  •  Done
  • References
  •  Done
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Overall Summary

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

References

  1. ^ http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/v494816

Last Line

Is the article's quote from the last line of the movie accurate. I have yet to find a script myself, but I have seen the movie a few times now and feel her last line is "My fouette. Perfect. It was perfect." But, of course, I may be wrong. 68.107.27.52 (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the script, the ending lines are as follows: LEROY: What did you do? NINA: I felt it. LEROY: Oh my god. NINA: ...perfect. LEROY: Someone, get help. NINA: Shhh... Leroy looks back at her. She smiles. NINA(CONT'D): It was perfect. He understands. the APPLAUSE grows more and more faint. Here eyes glaze over and everything goes completely SILENT. Nina lies there motionless, a smile frozen on her face. CUE TO BLACK. Just thought you'd like to know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.68.110 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I replayed it several times, and it is clear that she said "It was perfect" and not "I was perfect", as some have tried to edit here. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the script calls for (and is that the actual shooting script that's quoted? where's the ref?), what she says is I was perfect. That's also the only thing that makes dramatic sense, given the what a powerful element her quest for perfection is throughout the film, and given her desire to emulate Beth whom she perceives as perfect. Also, there's another typo in what's quoted: here eyes glaze over . . . Awien (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
IMDb also has I was perfect: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0947798/quotes Awien (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
How would it not make just as much sense for Nina to say "it" (her performance) was perfect?
Here is a link to the script referenced above. [1]
Obviously just listening to the scene is not so conclusive, as different people hear one thing or the other. But watch her mouth as she's saying it, and it's pretty clear she's forming the word 'it'. --SubSeven (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
You ask: How would it not make just as much sense for Nina to say "it" (her performance) was perfect? Because throughout she wants to be perfect, steals from Beth whom she wants to emulate because she is perfect.
As for the script, it's true that version calls for "it". But have you ever acted? Changes get made both accidentally and deliberately without the paper copy ever getting altered. Awien (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
So far we have a script and at least my personal opinion that she said "It". I think that both versions make sense. But unless we would have proof or consensus otherwise, we should keep what we have. Debresser (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


Some observations:

- That script was expressly prohibited to be performed, published, reproduced etc. etc. It appears to be pirated.

- It is by no means clear that it is the final version. We either don’t have or can’t see the colour-coded revisions mentioned at the beginning.

- Even if it was the final version, it could still have been changed during shooting.

- As far as I can see, everybody who blogged, commented, explained, quoted (inc. IMDb) on the basis of what they heard in the film percceived the last line as “I was perfect”.

- Sorry, but you are not a native speaker of English. I am. It makes a difference. I'm multilingual and a long-time language teacher, and I know. I hear "I".

- SubSeven had to force him/herself to hear "it" under the influence of the "script".

- Other people have tried before to correct the line to “I”.

- If the status quo is wrong, you change it.

Awien (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have to force myself to hear anything. I saw the film in theaters, December 2010, and I heard "it was perfect". This is only confirmed now when I re-watch the scene, and also by reading her lips during the scene. And if that was not the case, and I did want to argue for a change, I would make sure I had something more substantial than original research. --SubSeven (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't care what the script says. I don't care what makes more sense dramatically. I also think that whether one is an English speaker or not is largely irrelevant; indeed, some non-English speakers are probably more tuned in than native speakers. And this business of I'm an expert and "I know" is frankly condescending. All that matters is what she said. At the moment, we have two editor who heard "it" and one who heard "I". Although consensus is not usually based on numbers, here numbers make some sense. So, leave it as "it". (In case any one cares, my preference would be to remove the quote from the plot completely and eliminate the need to spend this much energy on something so trivial. But, hey, this is Wikipedia, and that's not likely to happen.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talk • contribs) 15:20, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely take the quote out. Awien (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not in favor of taking the quote out, but wouldn't oppose it actively either. All your objects to "it" are not substantial, IMHO, but the reasons to keep it are. So either it stays "it", or the sentence gets removed, but "I" is out of the question. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Debresser, you can't simply declare "I" to be out of the question. Setting aside what individuals perceive the word to be, we have documentation from two competing sources.
We have the quote as given by Internet Movie Database [2] which has the line as "I was perfect". IMDb is a high-profile and authoritative site, subject to a lot of scrutiny.
Then we have the pirated Moviecultists version of the script [3] but not at least SIX subsequent revisions mentioned right on the first page. [As a very obvious example of a difference between this script and the actual film, there's no mention of her being enveloped by the light, but that certainly happens]. There, the line is given as "It was perfect". So, not even the definitive script, coming from a not particularly authoritative source.
So unless you can back off from your excessive reliance on what is apparently only an early version of the script, and failing input from Portman or Aronofsky in person, I think we have to take the quote out.
Awien (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
IMDb (taken alone) is a dubious source of information in cases like this, since much of its "content is user-submitted and therefore not generally reliable" as per (essay) WP:IMDB. Validusername 「Talk」 18:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Have edited acknowledging both versions rather than removing the quote entirely. Awien (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And I have reverted you. Your edit was not discussed here, and I personally find it a bad idea. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't like the "compromise" either. Too much for too little and it's like airing our internal disagreement in public. When we have sources that conflict, sometimes we make note of that, but this is more a question of editors' hearing conflicting, and that's not something that belongs in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
My compromise was a real compromise, not a "compromise": it even-handedly mentioned both versions. Debresser, you need to support your claim that that's a bad idea. Bbb23, it's hardly "too much for too little" given that it's the climactic line of the movie. Both of you, if IMDb is not an acceptable source, Moviecultists is no more acceptable.
But anyway, if compromise is unacceptable, we're left with delete. Bbb23, you already proposed it; Debresser, you "wouldn't oppose it actively"; on that basis, I will remove the quote later this evening unless enough people indicate that they prefer compromise after all. Awien (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any hurry to remove it. I think you should wait longer than that. For one thing, Debresser is against removing the quote; he just said he wouldn't "actively oppose" it, not quite the same. I'd like to hear from more editors before removing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to try this again. There are incontrovertibly two views as to what the last sentence is. We could save a huge amount of time and effort by acknowledging that fact in half a dozen words added to the synopsis, and all move on. Yes? Awien (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of disagreement, I am restoring an unbiased statement of the fact that opinion is divided as to what her last words are. If anyone doesn't regard this as a fair compromise and reasonable solution to the problem, I would suggest you refrain from reverting it until you discuss the matter here. Awien (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted you. Either you obtain a consensus for your change(s) (not temporary silences), or you can take the matter to WP:DRN. This is a small issue, although one that some feel strongly about (not I), and your impatience and tendency toward unilateral action are not helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
@Awien, you are headed for a block. I've warned you on your talk page. You are now at 3 reverts. I will not block you as I am involved, but I will report you if you continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, Debresser, SubSeven, I have taken the matter to [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awien (talk • contribs) 13:59, 4 September, 2012‎

Note: Specific DRN request is located here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Black_Swan_.28film.29. Validusername 「Talk」 20:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

We could still resolve this with good faith and good will on both sides. Please READ what I say before responding. If any part of it is incorrect, please respond with a clear statement as to what specifically is incorrect about it.

This is the bottom line:

A draft script calls for “It was perfect”. But even if we had the director’s own, personal, final shooting script snatched out of his hand on the set, that would still not guarantee that the line wasn’t changed to “I was perfect” during the shooting, or dubbed in post-production. The script (but especially a version that was subsequently revised six times) can’t be proof of what actually ended up on the soundtrack.

IMDb gives the line as “I was perfect”. So do do 11 of the first 13, 84.6%, of the websites, blogs etc. that I found by googling “Black Swan ending” that include a direct quote. The majority of people hear “I was perfect” not “It was perfect”. A handful of examples:[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Regardless of who's right or who's wrong, or the fact that these are not authoritative sites, it is therefore an unbiased, objective, incontrovertible statement of fact to say that different people interpret the last words differently.

To note this in the article is in no way airing WP editors’ differences in public. It’s noting a fact.

In doing so, I wrote first: she whispers a few words variously interpreted as "I felt it. Perfect. It was perfect", or "I felt it. Perfect. I was perfect".

I then shortened that slightly to: her last words are variously interpreted as "I felt it. Perfect. It was perfect", or "I felt it. Perfect. I was perfect".

In what way, specifically, is either of those statements incorrect? Or unacceptable and according to what criteria? Or based on what shaky logic?

Would it make the statement more acceptable to you to change “interpreted” to “perceived”, “reported”, or “quoted”?

The alternative would be, as we said before, to cut any reference to Nina’s last words. I changed my mind on the desirability of that since it is the climactic line of the movie, and therefore important in trying to interpret the movie. However, it remains a potential way out of the impasse.

Thank you for reading. Awien (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot Summary 2

I slightly altered the ending of the summary to better reflect the ending of the film which was a bit more ambiguous than what was originally said. If you read the script released by Fox Searchlight, you'll see it doesn't say "she dies" or "she succumbs to her wound." And if you see the movie, you see she doesn't cough up blood and no one says, "She's dead." Also, Aronofsky in an interview declined to say what the ending meant. So I think it is more appropriate to just say what happened...that she appeared to be covered in blood, said what she said, looked up and the screen faded to white.

What the ending meant has been fiercely debated on the IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maskbird (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the plot summary needs to mention Beth. I feel someone who is better with words than me should do it if anyone agrees with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.192.17 (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a bit about Beth, basically who her character is and her presence in one of Nina's traumatic psychosis experiences, as I think it helps a reader see some of the more disturbing details that come with the character's descent into madness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.60.141 (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the Plot summary, it says the sentence "Nina begins to witness strange happenings." I think this sentence is very ambiguous and if someone was reading this article to gain a better understanding of her psychological struggle, this sentence would not do a good job of explaining it. I tried to find a way to edit it, but I can't quite understand what it is referring to- her hallucinations, what she actually witnesses in the physical world, or something completely different. Does someone have a suggestion for how this sentence could be edited? CaylinEnoch (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the line is vague. Given the context, I'm pretty confident the writer was referring to her hallucinations. Later in the plot outline, it notes "her hallucinations becoming stronger" (maybe not the best wording either. more vivid? more extreme?), with no other reference to hallucinations beforehand other than the line you are describing. --SubSeven (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it could say something like "Nina begins to witness interactions that cannot be explained, leaving the viewer with the impression that she is beginning to hallucinate." and then where they address it again, instead of saying "her hallucinations becoming stronger" we can reference that she sinks deeper into her psychological struggle,that the viewer now knows that Nina is most certainly hallucinating and that this is causing her to blur the line of reality and her hallucinations and rendering her unable to know if her experiences are real? CaylinEnoch (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Interns controversy

Please add There was a court ruling regarding unpaid intern work on this set that has the potential to change labor law in the United States. Some sources: http://business.time.com/2013/06/13/black-swan-event-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-unpaid-internships/ and http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jun/12/black-swan-interns-win-landmark-case . I would add it myself, but I don't have the time honestly and there are plenty of users who have added great content to this page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the tag as it's unjustified. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the article about this issue, not that the material there is "outdated". What you're really proposing is that informatiion be added to the article. My guess is it doesn't belong in the article as it's too remote, but I'll let others express an opinion on that point.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I am positive there was coverage back then... yes, this is one such example. Today, I am seeing a lot of coverage about the matter. Time, The Atlantic, The Hollywood Reporter, NBC News, etc. are all reporting on it. I think it is worth adding to the article. After all, we have a "Controversies" subsection (which really should be renamed per WP:STRUCTURE) where we could cover this internship lawsuit. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Black Swan (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Swan (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Swan (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Swan_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1136567705"