Talk:Eyes Wide Shut/Archive 2

Interpretation

Most of the interpretation of this movie seems to be original research and should probably be removed. It was more obvious in the Full Metal Jacket article which parts were original research vs. which were not (since some of this contains references to others' research), but it needs to be rewritten very badly. Well, it needs to be largely removed.

And I've done so. Daniel Quinlan 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

To the anonymous writer of the rumor about the reason for Keitel leaving: Was it really a scene with Kidman? I would make sense if it was the bathroom scene with "Mandy". Otherwise, with Kidman, that would change much of the story.

Stylistic features

This section of the article is also a type of artistic critique. There should be external references to back up the opinions. Otherwise, this section is original work and thus ought to be removed. Dyl 17:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this section is really bad. I am going to slowly rewrite it. I began with the 'mise en scène' segment [1]. I removed a passage which argued vociferously that the colours in the film are symbolic without ever explaining what they are symbolic of. I presume no-one will miss this. The Singing Badger 03:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for the theatricality section; please double-check my edits [2] The Singing Badger 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ziegler

This article references the character Ziegler without describing who he is, and thus the references are confusing (especially for people who have not seen the film in a while, like myself.) Perhaps the plot section needs to be expanded.--MM 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Symbolism

The "Symbolism" section seems to be entirely original research. I'll delete it all within 24 hours if no source from outside Wikipedia is provided. CRCulver 02:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The masonic / solar symbols throughout for example shown on doors, walls and ceilings throughout the entire movie can not be dismissed. As far as the ritual is concerned, the interpretation is based on the astronomic relationship of celestial bodies to each other which is the the basic secret knowledge preserved by diverse brotherhoods and orders long before to this present day. I will agree though that the interpretation should probably be more clearly marked as such. The study of the occult is certainly not the domain of high profile university research, though the work of renowned researchers in the field such as Jordan Maxwell, Manly P. Hall or John Allegro and many others back this interpretation. I am willing to concede that the interpretation of the ritual may not be well received by some, especially with an eye towards the title of the movie.

In order to allow others to enter into the discussion of the material I present I am also copying the modification in question here:

The most telling scenes of the movie show the protagonist penetrating the religious celebrations of a secret society comprised of an occult ritual preceding a sexual orgy. In the ritual twelve women wearing black robes kneel in a circle around a priest in a red robe who during the entire ritual will continously incantate a certain invocation. The priest is holding a censer in his right hand and a golden staff in his left. During the entire ritual the priest moves counterclock-wise through the circle. The most notable element of the ritual as portrayed in the movie is when a kiss is passed from one woman to another along the circle (due to the mask worn in the ritual the kiss is only mimed). The movie does not show the number of times the kiss is passed from woman to woman and therefore it is unknown whether the kiss is intended to be passed along the entire circle or only a specific number of times. At the end of the ritual the priest releases one woman after another from the circle into the audience where she selects one member of that audience and mimes a kiss with that person. After the ritual a sexual orgy takes place among members of the orders. It is possible that part of the ritual is also in preparation of the orgy, introducing the element of Hieros Gamos, the expectation that certain gods or godlike entities take possession of participants in the rituals allowing sexual intercourse between members of the order and those astral entities.

The ritual itself can be interpreted as follows: Each of the women embodies a sign of the zodiac which in turn designates an age. In Astrotheology and Astrology these ages are defined by the twelve zodiacal constellations the Sun is found at sunrise. At the moment of this writing the sun rises in the zodiacal constellation of Pisces but is on the verge of crossing over into the constellation of Aquarius. This gradual change of the sun's location in the zodiacal constellations at sunrise is due to the Precession of the Equinoxes, a circular movement of the rotational axis of our planet. The Sun enters into a new zodiacal constellation roughly every 2,150 years. It can be assumed that the women in the circle each represent such an age equivalent to a span of about 2,150 years. The kiss that is passed from woman to woman represents secret knowledge that is preserved and passed from mouth to mouth over the ages. The priest can be assumed to represent the sun as it passes through the constellations of the zodiac, as during the entire ritual he moves in counter-clock direction through the circle just as the sun moves in counter-clock direction through the constellations of the zodiac. At the end of the ritual the symbolism of preserving and passing on the secret knowledge to a chosen few of the order is reinforced by the fact that the women after being released from the circle through the authority of the priest find a member in the attending audience and mime a kiss with an individual member.

Apart from the ritual itself the entire movie is replete with the symbolism not only of Freemasonry but also that of other secret societies. Most notable is the solar symbolism found in the scenes of the protagonists visit to the mansion where the ritual and celebrations are held but also during other scenes of the movie. This symbolism can be found on ornaments on and over doors and walls or for example on the pillars and statues which are placed to the right and left of the doorways of the mansion. Rich in masonic symbolism is also the home of the woman the protagonist visits with to console her immediately after the death of a close relative. Notable are aside from the masonic alcove in the hallway also seemingly minor details such as the red benches with white spots in the hallway, a pattern which is for example associated by sibirian shamans with the Fly Agaric Amanita muscaria mushroom containing psylocybin, a highly psychoactive, psychodelic substance.

Thomas Quentin 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want this material in Wikipedia, you must source it from someone's publicly accessible research outside of Wikipedia that Eyes Wide Shut contains such symbolism. You cannot publish your own ideas here, because that is original research, see WP:NOR. Furthermore, if you want to participate in discussion here, you need to get an account. No one likes to deal with an anonymous IP. CRCulver 03:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The various solar (masonic) symbolisms found in the movie can easily be pointed out and backed with the published works of the gentlemen I listed who have studied occult orders and brotherhoods in depth. The same thing applies to the various elements the interpretation of the ritual is built from. Of course there is no way around the interpretation itself as the movie depicts a secret ritual by a secret order or brotherhood and if derived from true rituals of such an existing order or brotherhood it is highly doubtful that they would share either the ritual or it's deeper symbolism. As far as sources and citations for the information presented is concerned, I will not be able to do that within the next 24 hours but most likely in the following days. Until then your "ultimatum" will probably have expired which means I - or maybe a helper? - will reintroduce this information into the article as sources become available.

As far as "dealing" with an anonymous IP is concerned, I can't see the additional benefit for the discussion here of owning an account except maybe for the associated talk page, but regardless of that we should not take the discussion of this page. If you're not comfortable with an IP editing here or reluctant to enter into the discussion with one then I apologize for the inconvenience I am causing you, but on the other hand I am sure that most people don't really mind as long as that IP doesn't hide behind the anonymity of four bytes of network addressing information. You should however not generalize your personal unease as the collective attitude of the thousands of user who have either signed up for an account or have chosen to edit without one.

Regards

Thomas Quentin 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You still don't understand. In order to place such information here, you must find a published source claiming that Eyes Wide Shut itself makes uses of certain symbolism in an intentional fashion. You cannot simply say, "Hey, I read this book about secret brotherhoods, and I think that Eyes Wide Shut is doing the same thing 'cause it sure looks like that to me!", because that is your own personal opinion and is original research. Now, as you've seen, another user, well-respected here on Wikipedia, has deleted the original research. CRCulver 04:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are asking for here is not necessarily beyond my reach. There is certainly a way to include more of such information in Wikipedia and not only in this article. For example we are also sorely missing an article on Astrotheology here. Thomas Quentin 11:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is beyond your reach. As far as I know, there is no published scholarship on this matter. Therefore, anything you include here will be your own personal opinions, and that falls under original research. CRCulver 02:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are tring to taunt me - or amuse me. Thomas Quentin 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

An analysis of the use of occult symbolism and secret society rituals in the film would be interesting indeed, but it may not be suited for Wikipedia. If the analysis is the result of your own thinking and research, it definitely doesn't belong here, not because of the content, but because of one of Wikipedia's basic policies, "no original research." If you haven't read it, please do so: WP:NOR. BTfromLA 02:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Critical Response is unjustly biased

In the critical response section, the review by Adam Gorightly is a subjective opinion of Cruise's and Kidman's beliefs, and not a critique of there performances. The full article that it cites is very anti-Cruise in its review of their acting, without giving any facts behind its bias. Blnd2Spll

More importantly, the author is some random guy who puts film reviews on his website so there's no reason to devote a whole paragraph to his opinions. I removed it. The Singing Badger 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Deeper subtexts of the movie controversies

It seems to me that the section on "deeper subtexts" is plagued by many of the same problems that the previously-deleted "symbolism" section had in spades, i.e., POV-pushing and original research. Once again, we are in the terrain of Freemasonic imagery, the Illuminati, and all sorts of "hidden meanings" which are regarded as so explicit and obvious, yet are known only to a very few. This sort of discussion is entirely inappropriate and not at all encyclopaedic, in my opinion. I think we need some discussion on the matter before this section is given the boot. ---Charles 03:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure this was in here before, placed by a user who make additions of this kind ("dark Freemasonic conspiracies!") to a large number of articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. CRCulver 03:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, except for the last citation, an article from Film Comment, all the souces were self-published web pages or blogs, not a "reliable source" of critical discourse. BTfromLA 03:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So what represents a "reliable source" anything published by a major corporation? Essentially what you are saying is if big money has not supported a view, it is not viable. That is sheer insanity, but I suppose the nature of our world, where what we consider an "encyclopedia" cannot contain "Original Research". Is there any form of information that is not original research?

That was precisely how I felt about the issue, BTfromLA. If this were allowed, anyone of us could write a blog entry, and then use it as a source for some POV-pushing in any given article. It is all irrelevant and not the least bit encyclopaedic. Thanks for removing it, CRCulver. ---Charles 05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with the conspiracy theorists, but I included this in the controversy section because if you know anything about freemasonry, you'd know there are freemasonic symbols and allusions in EWS. Its nonsense to take the leap that conspiracy theorists maintain that Kubrick believed in an Illuminati conspiracy, as the Illuminati was disbanded over a 100 years ago. But nevertheless, it is an existing controversy surrounding the film, and deserves to be included in that section DerekDD 18:00, 28 August 2006

Can you cite any formal research dealing with these? Blogs and vanity webpages are not appropriate citations. Matter-of-fact mentions of "CIA sexslaves" are not encyclopedic material. CRCulver 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. Only describe material that has previously been published by a reliable source--that's the wikipedia standard. So, if there is an "existing controversy," you should be able to find well-established critics or scholars who have written about it in reputable publications. If not, it may be interesting, it may be true, but it isn't wikipedia material. BTfromLA 00:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the sociological overview? Culver just up and deleted absolutely everything. DerekDD

That's because none of what was in there was cited from reputable sources. CRCulver 00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are the footnotes?

There are two footnotes, but they don't reference anything. Does anyone know where they went?

More trivia

I went to a screening of this film the other day, and they presented two pieces of trivia that I don't see on here. One is that the film holds a Guinness World Record for the longest continuous film shoot. Another was that the mask that Cruise wears is molded after Ryan O'Neal. Could someone find sources for this trivia and add it, possibly?

Jungian edits

If you want to talk about Jungian allusions in the film, you must source it to formally published scholarship. As you did not, and it look that you are just violating WP:NOR, I've removed it. Oh, and conspiracy theories that Kubrick was murdered are in no way suitable for WP. CRCulver 21:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Deceitful world

[...] I'd suggest [we] get concensus on the facts to include, find reliable sources, include the cites inline, outline a structure, and then write it getting concensus for each sentence before going on to the next. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-15t19:19z

Structure.

• deceitful world
  • who says this
• description of how this portrayal

Facts to include, and inline cites.

1. deceitful world (are these words ever used?)
   1. trompe-l'oeil
      1. is this notable enough to include? has someone else written about it using this term?
      2. Michel Ciment
         1. French critic (referenced at his article, tho a better ref than IMDb is welcome)
      3. Book title, year, edition, publisher, page(s)?
      4. short explanation of what that means (detail can be found when clicking the link)
   2. "Nothing is what it appears in Eyes Wide Shut" - nothing? That doesn't seem like a valid comment at all.
      1. Falsetto, Stanley Kubrick: a narrative and stylistic analysis, year, edition, publisher, page(s)?
2. Bill's shift

Zosar, please add the book details here - I can't because I don't have access to the books to check. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-18t20:17z

Zosar, you still need to cite your references: book titles, page numbers, etc., for every fact in the article. Click the "citation needed" links above to see how. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-29t18:11z, -- Jeandré, 2007-07-31t18:19z

Deceitful world

According to one of Kubrick's most influential scholars, French critic Michel Ciment, in Eyes Wide Shut, the director depicts a "A trompe-l'oeil universe". The definition implies that what seems real is fake. The name is derived from French for "trick the eye", from tromper - to deceive, and l'œil - the eye. In his study on Kubrick, Stanly Kubrick: A Narrative and Stylistic Analysis, Mario Falsetto reaches the same conclusion, "Nothing is what it appears in Eyes Wide Shut. The film demands that viewers constantly revise what they think they know about the charcacters, the events and how the narrative operates".

We need references (see WP:CITE) for Ciment being a French critic, one of Kubrick's most influential scholars, the book and page where he says it's a "trompe-l'oeil universe".

We don't need the entomology, just a short description of what it means, with the linked article handling a more in depth description.

The Falsetto sentence is better since it names the book, but we need page numbers. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-16t18:51z

Dr. Bill Harford's shift from the well-established world of his certainties to an unfamiliar world hidden behind (inside) the well-established one, is infact a shift from what seems real (and which Bill takes for granted) to what is different, if not the opposite of what it seemed. He will discover that Ziegler has a double life (on the evening of the party at his mansion he betrays his wife, by his own admission he was among the masked guests gathered at Somerton), that Nick Nightingale, his friend from college, who now plays in a jazz band, also plays the piano at the mysterious night gatherings at which Ziegler participates.Like Militch, the disreputable owner of the costume shop "Rainbow" (who rents costumes and acts as a pimp for his own daughter), these characters are something and at the meantime something else, they play an official role that hides a covert one, (like the two Japanese business men with make up and wigs who amuse themselves with Militch's daughter), equal in this to the masked guests attending the ominous ceremony at Somerton ("I'm not gonna tell you their names, but if I did, I don't think you'd sleep so well", Ziegler tells Bill, implying the prestige and power they have in their day life). It is here where deceit reaches its apex, where everything seems to be carefully staged ("It was a kind of charade", Ziegler will say later) and where also Bill, his face covered by a mask, participates to the general game of concealment.

Eyes Wide Shut is a movie that strongly insists on the staged, counterfeit nature of identities together with its emphasis on the blurring of the line between truth and fiction. This atmosphere is also strongly emphasized by the studio reconstruction of Lower Manhattan, extremely accurate as usual with Kubrick in all its details, but at the same time unequivocally fake. A city suspended like all the rest between dream and reality, expressionism and realism. An actual but magically anachronistic place (as Johnatan Rosenbaum has noticed, the "Sonata Cafe", the club where Nightingale plays, brings us back to the 50ies). Again, in Mario Falsetto's words, "The exacting lighting and highly artificial decor of the film's mise en scène also contribute to the feeling that we are in a world where it is impossible to be sure of anything".

Overly long or excessively detailed plot

As the article stands now, the plot summary does not nearly take up as much of the total article space as do many other movies' plot summaries and, as it is written, it seems very concise for such a detailed film. Does anyone have any objections to removing the tag? Alvis 06:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Scrooby

I am stunned that the link to my essay has been removed, especially since I didn't put it there in the first place; some other user did. And it has been there for a year now I think. I think someone has a personal vendetta against me.

Actually no one has a vendetta against you. Unfortunately, the links added (and it was you that redirected the external link on this page and added the others on other pages) do not meet the guidelines set at WP:EL. Also please don't forget to sign your edits. MarnetteD | Talk 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you are accusing me of adding the Eyes Wide Shut link on this page when I have made it very clear that I had nothing to do with the adding of the site. It is obvious when compared to others that I have in fact made, because I never sign myself with the name as put there by the unknown original link-maker. I think you, MarnetteD, are a very, very unfair person who has made me very unhappy and distressed; you seem to have made decisions while entirely violate the spirit of wikipedia. My website is exclusively scholarly material for students and informed members of the public, without a single shred of promotion or advertisement. If you can show me a single line or word of promotion or advertisement on my website relating to me (my job, money, adverts for stuff to buy), then I will accept your criticism. I am very sad that wikipedia has to have unreasonable editors such as yourself to maintain these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrooby (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First, it does not matter which editor adds a link if it violates WP:EL it violates it. Second, based on this edit [3] you made sure that the link went to your website when its address changed. Third, as it is your website that you keep adding to the other articles involved it needs to be pointed out that this is the definition of self promotion (note: money does not have to be involved for promotion to have occured). Most importantly, you need to be aware that there is no value judgment on your work involved in this situation. Hundreds of scholars have written about there reactions to Kubrick's films. That he can engender such a wide variety of ideas is one of the extraordinary accomplishments of his work. The only thing being decided here is the viability of the attachment of these external links here at wikipedia. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links. One last thing, you still do not seem to be able to sign your edits. MarnetteD | Talk 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I have now figured out the tilde thing. I am sorry that it had to even come to this. But I think MarnetteD is treating me very, very rotten and I have simply given up the fight. I am sad and distressed, and I think the Eyes Wide Shut page in particular will be worse off for what this editor has done (removed my external link which gets hits from over 50 countries a month). This editor has demonstrated through his/her grammatical errors in his/her posts that he/she is not qualified to judge scholarly pages. But what can I do? I am sad and distressed, after being a part of wikipedia for over a year. I am going to have to ignore wikipedia and forget it exists, because I have become so unhappy with the unfair way I have been treated by this editor who seems to act without proper rhyme or reason. At any rate, he/she has failed to properly explain the reasons for my dismissal, especially when the concept of "rules and regulations" cited can relate to every single link there is, it seems -- so that there could be no external links at all. I thought wiki was for the general public, and I am a responsible member of that public, and only used wikipedia in a responsible way (all my webpages that were linked to wikipedia reflect this). I feel MarnetteD has done me a great wrong, but I am going to retreat now in sadness and distress and try to move on, while remaining sad that my web pages, which have been so helpful to students and scholars worldwide, will now be cut off from those same students and scholars in future. And Why? For one -- one -- one person's decision, which I found to be unreasonable and saddening. Scrooby 23:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I mentioned signing your edits several times during this discourse including giving the exact instructions how to do this. I also provided several links to explain the policies that were being applied yet, as near as I can tell, you did not read any of them. Your obvious inability to learn about wikipolicy is your own fault not mine. There are plenty of places that you could take your questions and concerns to other editors here at wikipedia. You could find out how to edit in general, and about the WP:EL policy in particular, but, instead you choose to whine. Up to now I have not once been rude about you at any point in this discussion, but, since you feel the need to insult me here are a few points about your post above.

1. If you page gets hits from all over the world what do you need the link here for? How can it be cutoff from people (unless the only hits it got were from readers at wikipedia and that is the very definition of the self promotion aspect of the external link policy)? I have not shut your website down have I?
2. In the nine edits that you made in your year of editing here the only thing you have done is add links to your webpage.
3. Comparing my grammar to yours would be laughable if it didn't so sadden me. Your use of the phrase "Shot by Shot: an deep analysis" might show some of the flaws in your insult.

Lots of claims can be made about the usefulness of your webpages, but, they have not been cut off from anybody. At least you will now be able to focus on them exclusively. MarnetteD | Talk 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Kubrick links

Whoa. I have only skimmed the above comments about this link business, but as someone who frequents the kubrick sites around the world, I am sure that Scrooby's link is well worth a mention on wikipedia. My own two cents in this matter is, while I've only skimmed the comments above, I am stunned that an authoritative editor would write in such a harsh way. Hold on, I'm looking at the above more closely now and I see some odd currents running through this exchange. Such as: "Comparing my grammar to yours would be laughable if it didn't so sadden me. Your use of the phrase "Shot by Shot: an deep analysis" might show some of the flaws in your insult." But didn't Scrooby in the first place explicitly state that he had nothing to do with the inclusion of that website in the first place, so that the words used for the link have nothing to do with him? Also, how is pointing out a grammatical error an "insult"? But that's neither here nor there, because I am trying to remain impartial here. I suppose Scrooby could have been more measured in his response, but it sounds like he went off the boil and didn't take a breath before responding. One other comment is odd, I think: "In the nine edits that you made in your year of editing here the only thing you have done is add links to your webpage." I wonder what this has to do with anything? But to be fair, let me now look at Scrooby's comments, in order to be fair: okay, Scrooby sounds far too emotional here, and I suppose that is what set the other editor off. My own last two cents, for what it's worth, is that wikipedia should assign policemen-editors who can prove a scholarly facility with the subject matter to be edited, or "policed" (in the case of this removal of the link business).

I see that this is getting much to long for public consumption -- all I can repeat is that I love Kubrick and want what's best for the subject.Ouillah 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, sorry. That last comment of mine about the policemen-editor led me to go check out MarnetteD's own wikipage. (Scrooby doesn't have a wiki page; I checked.) Seems this editor is into such cool stuff as Monty Python (awesome; funniest movies EVER!), Dr. Who (similarly awesome, especially the old stuff with the weird video tunnel effect at the beginnings), "I Claudius" (never seen it), and Oscar Wilde (read some stuff a long time ago). But, and here's the important point, where is Kubrick on this page of deep loves? Shouldn't the policeman-editor of a specific page have a specific academic qualification? I guess I'm talking about Wikipedia in a more general sense here. But if this editor nowhere on his/her page of loves-likes-fan-based-admiration expresses his/her love of Kubrick, why, then, is this editor editing the Kubrick page? Granted the editor says he/she likes "films" (I think this is said) -- but "films" can cover anything from Disney movies to Adam Sandler movies to porno movies. Darn, this is getting long. But I think, for a start, wikipedia should stop having anonymous editors. (Something else is niggling me: when I pointed out MarnetteD's harsh retort to Scrooby's emotional response, I wasn't against it in spirit -- anyone can get mad -- but when MarnetteD is acting in the capacity of a wikipedia policeman-editor, then I think such behavior is unacceptable. MarnetteD is supposed to Set The Example, Set the Tone, correct? When MarnetteD returns a supposed "insult" with an "insult", is this proper behavior for a "representative" of wikipedia? Or am I wrong? I don't know much about Wikipedia, really, but if MarnetteD can remove links and stuff, then is MarnetteD "higher up" than a mere editor? Maybe someone can enlighten me, if anyone on Earth is reading this.) This is my two cents anyway. That's my two cents -- or how many cents is it now? Tee hee. If anyone has gotten to the end of this, YOU truly love KUBRICK. Haha. Adios, everyone. Stay cool. Peace. Let's link to PEACE.Ouillah 00:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching Kubrick films, and reading various esays on them for over 40 years. One does not need a userbox to illustrate everything that one appreciates. As to my reply to the editors insults it needs to be noted that Scrooby is the one who edited the link, originally put in by an anonymous IP (so there is no way to no who the editor who added it in the first place was) to go to the editors new website, thus, the editor could have altered the phrasing but felt it was correct. I am not being a policeman I am simply applying the strict policies against adding links to personal websites that wikipedia has. There are many places where you can go and ask other editors whether this situation has been properly handled if you wish. It is also interesting to note that you have never edited at wikipedia before today and that your only reason for creating a new account has been to address this situation. This is pretty much the definition of a sockpuppet and, thus, any edits that you make can be considered edits by Scrooby (who never made any edits except to add links to their webpage until the whining posts on various talk pages started) as their similarity is obvious. MarnetteD | Talk 01:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I tried to do a good thing and now my own head has been bitten off. You are one hard-line guy. Yes, guy. A quick glance at your wiki page reveals your respect of all things male -- Python, Dr. Who, I Claudius, and, um, Oscar Wilde. Another current runs through this list, but let's leave that unspoken (but this undercurrent is echoed in the touchy "insult" and "whining" words). So you're a guy in his 60s at least, I suppose. Wouldn't your venerable age suggest you have learned by now how to write properly? What is the definition of a man who knows very little but thinks he knows it all? A moron. (Do I understand it now? Wikipedia is the domain for functional illiterates?) Shall I demonstrate? Following upon something Scroob pointed out, your grammar IS atrocious, and bad grammar is always an embarrassment when it is unwittingly deployed in a scolding tone. That you have made over 11,000 edits since mid-2005 is also an extraordinary fact, but I won't expand on that peculiar phenomenon at the moment. Instead, let's go over your grammatical errors: "to the editors insults" should be "to the editor's insults"; "I am not being a policeman I am simply applying the strict policies" is a run-on, an atrocious error. Do you even have a high school diploma? For someone who has made over 11,000 edits on wikipedia, you fail to point out your academic credentials on your wikipage. Now, speaking as someone becoming increasingly anti-wikipedia (putting aside this particular external link business), "the strict policies against adding links to personal websites" is patent poppycock: a quick glance at, say, the various Kubrick pages will show violations up and down the list of external links; the rules have to be interpreted, and should the act of interpretation be put in the responsibility of a semi-illiterate, impertinent "editor" such as MarnetteD? Is your bad grammar evidence of encroaching senility? Over 11,000 edits on wikipedia have been made by a senile guy? But what I take issue with most of all is your parting blast: "any edits that you make can be considered edits by Scrooby". Is this proper logic? "Can be considered"? So you're basing your editorial judgements on a hunch? It is pure speculation.(I want to indeed complain to someone at wikipedia; perhaps you can suggest the proper method.) I am beginning to understand the psychology of at least one wikipedia editor. A character profile of MarnetteD is coalescing in my mind; a picture of a small-minded blowhard who thought he was an emperor. (Someone who hides behind anonymity: I invite you to point me to anything you've written that has nothing to do with wikipedia.) Recalling the grammar: a limp-wristed, aging emperor enthroned in anonymity before his computer, exercising his "astuteness" in the scattershot manner of the barroom bore. Yes, my essay topic shall be: "MarnetteD: A Case Study of Wikipedia".Ouillah 04:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not go on, at length, about other users. It's uncivil and could easily be construed as a personal attack. This is a talk page. It's for an article. If you're not talking about the article, you're in the wrong place. --Cheeser1 05:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Brewing edit war over link

I have no particular opinion on whether or not the disputed link should be included, but let's transfer discussion on the topic to here, rather than in edit summaries. User:MarnetteD: you've suggested that the link violates WP:EL as spam. Could you elaborate on that? Sarcasticidealist 05:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sarcasticidealist. Although I said I would not return to this page, your very kind support (and Cheeser1's as well) at the Wikiquette alerts page has brought me back.Scrooby 06:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Scrooby, you never left it since, along with canvassing another editor, you used a sock/meat puppet today in both your personal attacks on me and in readding the link to you website to the page for this film. The link involved is, by the editor's own admission, a link to their personal webpage. That is a violation of the external link policy. While the original adding of this link was by an anonymous IP the switching over of it to Scrooby's new webaddress was done by Scrooby. There has never been a value judgment on the content of the Scrooby website. The removal is based on the clear policy that you may not add a link to your personal webpage. Using sockpuppets to add that link is also a violation of wikipolicy. The only editing, other than messages on discussion pages, that Scrooby has made is adding links to their website. The continual violation of WP:NPA that has continued on several discussion pages is a different matter. However, even a cursory reading of them does add to the evidence of sock/meat puppetry. MarnetteD | Talk 10:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations should be brought to WP:SSP. Until they are, I would suggest that they be left out of this conversation. As for the link, if we take Scrooby at his word that he didn't add it in the first place, it means that somebody did at some point consider the link worthy of inclusion on its own merits. If this is the case, I don't think there's anything at all wrong with Scrooby fixing the link when he knew his site was moving.

Presumably you don't think the site is worthy of inclusion on its own merits. Could you elaborate a little bit on why. Sarcasticidealist 13:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This editor has done nothing to engender AGF and you might ask yourself how he new that his site was an external link here that would need moving when his webpage address changed. You are presuming incorrectly. I am not quite sure why I am having to repeat myself but as I have noted on both Scrooby's talk page and in my posting just above I have made no value judgment on the merits of Scrooby's website. The removal is based on the clear policy that you may not add a link to your personal webpage. You have suggested that he take it to WP:THIRD and, I as stated in my message to you, I will be happy to live with a third party decision. MarnetteD | Talk 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Scrooby has demonstrated clear bad faith (which would be required for us to stop assuming good faith on his part). I also understand that your stated reasons for removing the link are that he added it, in contravention to WP:EL. He denies this, however (changing the url in a link is a simple maintenance task, and is not the same thing as adding it in the first place, which involves a value judgment). You ask how he would know that he had an external link here that would need updating once the url of his website changed. My immediate guess would be that he tracks referrals, and saw that a great many were coming from this article. Because I see no conclusive evidence that this user added the link in the first place (and because I don't think the WP:EL prohibition on adding your own links applies to updating a url), I don't think removal on that basis alone is sufficient. Besides that, what happens then if another user who demonstrably *isn't* Scrooby re-adds the link? Are you then fine with it being there?

I understand that you haven't made a judgment on the value of the link. My point is that, in determining whether or not this link belongs in the article, we *need* to make a judgment on the value of the link, because it doesn't qualify for removal solely on the basis of the anti-spam provisions of WP:EL. This is a value judgment that I don't feel competent to make; I'm hoping you'll have some thoughts. Sarcasticidealist 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to also note that "This editor has done nothing to engender AGF" is way out of line. Nobody has to earn your good-faith assumptions. You're supposed to assume good faith. --Cheeser1 22:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the good faith. Once again the only edits that Scrooby has ever made to wikipedia, other than talk page edits, is to add links to his website. There is no evidence that he was not the person who added it originally. Your surmise that he was tracking where the hits to his website came from has an interesting outcome. If there were a number of hits coming from here then that would be the reason that he started adding links to his webpage to other articles. That is certainly why the "no self-promotion" aspect of the EL policy is in place.

As of yet no admin has looked into this. WP:THIRD has not been used. There has been no demonstration that sock/meat puppetry has not been used and there would be no reason to assume that any addition of links to his website in the future would not have been solicited by him because of this very situation. As has been pointed out before the evidence of sock/meat puppetry is actually quite strong. Also, there has been no addressing of the massively long winded personal attacks (yet another reason to not assume good faith) made on multiple pages by this editor. As you were not the subject of these attacks I can understand how that does not matter to you. But, I will put up the editing that I have done (warts and all) to try to improve articles and links, to try to revert and prevent vandalism, to try and assist other editors in learning the ways of wikipedia over an editor whose only contribution to wikipedia has been to funnel hits to his website at anytime. MarnetteD | Talk 20:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You remark (correctly) that there has been no proof that there hasn't been sock/meat puppetry, and no proof that Scrooby didn't add the link in the first place. But the absence of such proof does not mean that we assume puppetry and that Scrooby is lying about adding the links in the first place - that would be exactly the opposite of what is prescribed by WP:AGF. I agree with you that this issue isn't resolved (see my comments below), but I just don't think that there are grounds for removing the link solely on the basis of WP:EL's spam provisions. In any event, I think those provisions are of secondary importance: if the link is useful and adds value to the article, we should let it stay. If it serves no real purpose other than promoting Scrooby's site, we should delete it on that basis.

As for sock puppetry, if you suspect it, alert WP:SSP. An article talk page is not the place to make sock puppetry accusations. Sarcasticidealist 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am very pleased that this issue has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I again state unequivocally that it was not I who first created the Eyes Wide Shut link to my website. I continue to assert that I will swear on a stack of bibles to this effect. One may wonder why I cared so much about wanting this link. The answer is simple: I respect scholarship very highly and want to assist newcomers and also students and scholars in the subject of Kubrick. It is amazing to me that my link would be taken down, especially since (1)never before in the history of Kubrick scholarship has there been such a close shot-by-shot analysis of any of his films (however, this is not to say that my treatment is without imperfection; by no means); and (2) even the most cursory glance at my website shows that there is no self-promotion at all. I have dedicated my web labors to inspiring others; my website has nothing to do with me; and a quick glance at some of my other Kubrick documents will amply demonstrate this -- i.e., I do not even sign my name on a great deal of those pdf documents. I believe that wikipedia made the right choice in this instance, and I will continue to praise wikipedia in future as the first place to go for students to find information on any subject under the sun. Thank you very much Sarcasticidealist for your assistance. I am sorry that MarnetteD and I had to come to grips in this manner, and I hope that, now that the status quo has been restored, we can all simply move on now.Scrooby 19:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scrooby - I think you may have misinterpreted my comments. This issue isn't resolved, because we haven't yet established any consensus as to whether those links remain in the article. We need to establish that consensus. I'd suggest WP:RFC as a means to do so, but before we can go that route we need a rationale for why the link should be deleted.

On that note, though, MarnetteD is free to disagree with me. And, indeed, he is free to initiate his own RFC (although if his basis for wanting the link removed is that he believes that you're the one who added it, I still think WP:SSP would be a better place to go). Sarcasticidealist 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To bring this back to the editorial decision making that is required to decide whether a link is appropriate - this appears to be a self published piece by someone who is not a notable expert on Kubrick. As such it should not be included. It's possible soem of the other links should be looked at too. -- SiobhanHansa 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

At last - somebody expressing an opinion of the link on its merits. Scrooby, do you wish to disagree with this opinion, or can we take it as consensus? If you disagree, please explain why SiobhanHansa's contentions are not correct based on WP:EL. Sarcasticidealist 23:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at last. There is now a problem. I have received commendations from scholars around the world, but it would be unwise to publish their statements without their permission. Second, my "Napoleon" essay on my Kubrick site was indeed included for publication in a new book from an academic press, but I demanded it to be removed when the editor rewrote my words (it would be tactless of me to name the editor or the book). So academia has indeed embraced what I have done. I would argue that I am indeed a notable scholar on Kubrick. If one goes to the webpage of the man who runs the website of Roger Ebert, the foremost film reviewer in America, one will find a glowing review of my "Barry Lyndon" essay. If one goes to spielbergfilms.com, one will find a glowing review of my "A.I." essay on my website. If one goes to the alt.movies.kubrick site, one will find glowing reviews of all of my work on my website, especially the "Eyes Wide Shut" essay. One will also find glowing reviews of my work linked to wikipedia at the xixax.com site. I could go on, but I wonder if one will trust me when I say that a film professor in England told me my "Eyes Wide Shut" document was the best piece of film criticism he had ever seen. Why did he say this? Because I have pioneered a new style in the piece: the closest reading possible of a film, a painstaking shot-by-shot analysis (a style which was inspired by Roland Barthes' literary study, "S/Z"). But I see I am in an unsettling position here, because how am I supposed to back up these absolutely true statements? Obviously MarnetteD does not find me trustworthy. Moreover, I think I have an easier way to answer this question. For one full year this link, and the Barry Lyndon link, and the Full Metal Jacket link, were up on wikipedia, and not a single person on any of these webpages commented unfavorably. Is that not enough? That no one has criticised my work on the talk pages? That no one took issue with my documents?

This has become an exceedingly surreal experience. One year ago I assisted in making three Kubrick pages as good as they could be, by adding external links to purely scholarly documents. Now, one year later, an editor named MarnetteD appeared from out of the blue and removed these links. I think this issue is greater than simply my own situation. I shall explain. When a student discovers useful documents via the external link section of wikipedia, this discovery can only enhance the student’s respect for wikipedia. By this I mean that external links, rather than being a beside-the-point addendum to a wikipage, can or should be seen as an integral aspect of a wikipage. Hence, I believe that qualified editors are necessary to properly judge what may be a suitable link and what shouldn’t. Now, for one year I had three links to Kubrick pages, one link for the “Eyes Wide Shut” page (a link which I did not add); a link to the “Barry Lyndon” page, and a link to the “Full Metal Jacket” page; these last two links I added myself. For one year these three links persisted, to no one’s vexation or disappointment. Not a single person on wikipedia took issue with these three links; rather, many people have accessed these links, and subsequently sent me messages of commendation for the quality of the scholarship. I must repeat, to stress my main point: When a user of wikipedia finds a useful document via the external links, wikipedia itself is thereby enhanced in the mind of the user. That is to say, wikipedia is to be congratulated (in the mind of the student) for offering an inroad to useful material. But all of a sudden, like a sudden storm front, an editor arrives, MarnetteD, from elsewhere on wikipedia (Oscar Wilde, etc.), and before this editor properly judges these links of mine, simply erases them, thereby, in my estimation, reducing the impact of the pages in question. What I find surreal about this situation is that this editor, MarnetteD, now, all of a sudden, seems to have taken a proprietary interest in the Kubrick pages, and is now acting in a dominant way, making changes without commenting on these changes in the talkback. This I find surreal in the extreme: how one editor can hijack a page, or a theme (Kubrick), taking over without compunction, and destroying the status quo which has persisted for so long for the benefit of many. That this editor, MarnetteD, refuses to discuss the literary merit of the links that were removed, further augments the surrealism of the situation. It is my contention that the links that were removed have enhanced wikipedia and can only continue to do so. That one editor can suddenly appear and ruin what was running smoothly seems odd to me, and worthy of further examination.

Also, with respect to SiobhanHansa's curious statement, I find it exceedingly strange that it should be I who has to defend what I have done. Let my work speak for itself. And if someone feels it is NOT acceptable in terms of scholarship, then let THAT person come forward. I have done MY side, have I not? I have produced the work. Let someone else produce the criticism.

I have said my piece now, and shall withdraw. I will accept the judgement of whomever at wikipedia deals with such things. I simply have to get on with my life, for at present I have a new 500 page book to revise before my agent will submit it for publication. All I can repeat is that this is an amazingly surreal situation, in which I wonder why an editor such as MarnetteD feels he has such a personal stake in the simple issue of an external link. What is my personal stake? Respect for the user, for scholarship. (My website, I repeat, has no self-promotion; indeed, there is so much more self-promotion on the MarnetteD wiki page.) If wikipedia truly respects scholarship and what is best for users, then wikipedia will make the right decision in this case. I wish you all well. Again, I say I have to withdraw, because it is a surreal experience having to deal with anonymous users. Best of luck, all of you. Scrooby 00:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I will stand by my refusal to actually debate whether the link is worthy of inclusion, since I still have no experience with film articles and don't think that my opinion would be a particularly qualified one. That said, there are a few points that need to be made in response to your post:

• I'm sure you'll agree that it does sound a little implausible that somebody could be a major scholar of Kubrick without that person appearing in any published source, anywhere, in that context. Could you provide links to others' glowing reviews of your work?
• All of us would agree that external links, used properly, enhance Wikipedia; it's why Wikipedia has external links. However, I'm sure that you would agree that we can't just link to every page about the movie. We need to confine ourselves to those that meet the criteria in WP:EL (I'm not saying whether yours does or doesn't). Which leads me into my next point, which is that
• A link's longevity does not prove its worth. The logical extension of that philosophy is that if a link remains for X days, it may never be removed thereafter (since its longevity "proves its worth").
• As I have advised you earlier "self-promotion" has a broader definition than simply promoting yourself as a person. It includes promoting your work, which is what User:MarnetteD is accusing you of.
• You wonder what User:MarnetteD's stake in this is. I would presume that his stake is the same as the rest of ours: the desire to improve the encyclopedia. He views your links as spam, and considers it to be in the encyclopedia's best interests to remove them. You disagree. That's well and good and how Wikipedia works. But to suggest, as you have persisted in doing, that MarnetteD must have some ulterior motive to want to destroy these articles is a clear violation of WP:AGF.
• You make reference to "whomever at wikipedia deals with such things". That "whomever" is the community, by consensus. That is what we (or, rather, others, since I'm not participating in the discussion on the link's merits) are doing now - evaluating the merit of your link in the context of WP:EL. Once consensus is reached, we'll know whether it's appropriate to remove the link or keep it.

Whether you stay or go is, of course, up to you. I would rather see you remain as a useful contributor - certainly my time on Wikipedia has been an excellent experience for me. But whether you stay or go, I hope you will understand the points that I have made above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you find my statement curious. I'm not asking you to defend the scholarship of your article. Obviously you are entitled to self publish what ever you wish. I am simply pointing out that external links to self published reviews and criticisms, except by well established experts are not appropriate. While you make some claims above about expertise, you appear to be saying that no experts have publicly acknowledged your own expertise, though you have had private correspondence, and posts on internet forums, that say nice things about your work. That really doesn't meet our standards. It is a shame it took a year for these links to receive appropriate scrutiny, I'm sorry the time lag seems to have added to the stress and confusion you've experienced over this. -- SiobhanHansa 02:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While this situation was resolved with Scrooby being blocked there are two items that need to be noted for the record.

1. If you read the information contained here [4] you will find a connection between Scrooby and the actual first time that his webpage was linked to the article.
2. Scrooby claimed that he was not User:Ouillah and at one point, at Wikiquette, said that he did not know what a sockpuppet was. These two little gems [5], [6] would seem to indicate otherwise.

Now that this has been resolved I just want to say cheers and happy editing (except for you persistant vandals) to all who come to wikipedia. MarnetteD | Talk 16:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Link discussion: arbitary section break

I came here because of the posting at WP:AN/I. Just examining the link, I think it falls under WP:EL, Links normally to be avoided, #12, "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." I believe that you could only be accepted as a recognized authority if there were reliable sources that commented on your work. So far I haven't found any such commentary on Google.

Without giving enough details, he claims (above) that his work is well thought of. He does not provide a complete reference for any of these statements, and most of the web sites he mentions are not reliable sources in any case, such as the Usenet group alt.movies.kubrick. So my conclusion is that the link is normally to be avoided under WP:EL. (If he could get his opinions conventionally published, then they could be cited). The question of who put the link there in the first place I think doesn't need to be solved. If the link were truly valuable, it should be kept in any case, but I am not convinced that it is. EdJohnston 01:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

some remarks

"Alice and Bill both resist their respective temptations": Maybe Bill would have eventually resisted, but as long the scene is shown he flirts with pleasure; this is only finished by Ziegler's emergency call.

" Because of Bill's self-assurance, out of spite she admits that she was willing to abandon her life and her future for one night with the officer": I did not see THIS motivation oh hers.

" Bill coerces Nick into divulging the secret party's requirements": no COERCING (how could Bill - he had no power over Nick)

"Kubrick considered casting Steve Martin in the role of Dr. William Harford, which was eventually given to Tom Cruise":by whom? By Kubrick himself? I cannot imagine what in the world made Kubrick select Tom Cruise for playing the protagonist!

And most of all: In this long article, there is not a word about the Theme of the film in the introducton. What a joke!

Floridan, 213.102.98.217 (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)