# Talk:Quentin Tarantino

This language is very pointlessly clunky and strange sounding. You don't "identify as" having Cherokee descent, you just have it, the same as any other race/ethnicity. It stands out as a counterproductive attempt at PC language. It especially stands out in the full sentence, "Tarantino identifies as having Cherokee descent through his mother, who is of Irish descent on her other side; his father is of Italian descent." Cherokee heritage is the only one with the "identifies as" added. It isn't claimed that his mother "identifies as having Irish descent" or his father "identifies as having Italian descent." 
Proposed rewrite:
"Tarantino is of Cherokee descent through his mother, who is of Irish descent on her other side; his father is of Italian descent."
Alternatively:
"Tarantino has Cherokee descent through his mother, who is of Irish descent on her other side; his father is of Italian descent."
I wasn't sure which one sounded the most natural. Both sound a lot more natural than "identifies as having Cherokee descent," though. 2601:483:4B80:F480:0:0:0:BF0F (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"His second film, Pulp Fiction (1994), a dark comedy crime thriller, was a major success with critics and audiences winning numerous awards, including..."
English isn't my first language. But I'm pretty sure this should be
"was a major success with critics and audiences, winning numerous awards..."
Note the comma after audiences. Right? The original makes it sound like Pulp Fiction was a hit with audiences who won numerous awards, not that the film was an audience hit and won numerous awards. If not my apologies for wasting time 2A02:C7E:2F68:AC00:5AC:2102:BECA:C2B4 (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
 Done Bang on.  I wish my comprehension was that good in another language. PianoDan (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rvert: noticed your change in the lead. Made me look at the larger issue. To me it seems the weight given to Spike Lee's opinion in Quentin_Tarantino#Usage_of_racial_slurs_in_films that is now summarized in wikivoice in the WP:LEAD is undue. Obviously Spike Lee as a director competitor (both are film directors) and thus Lee would have a COI issue. Do we have other's commenting on the subject about the racism issues or is this only Lee? If it is only Lee, then we should maybe attribute it to Lee (we dont need to wipe it but the section might be called Lee's thoughts, or something like that) but then the summary in the LEAD will also attribute to LEAD or we will drop from the LEAD as Lee's opinion FRINGE. To be doing this in wikivoice on a BLP we need a chorus, not just one other (potentially) jealous director Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf Thanks for the invite. My main point is that the lead should not be devoid of any criticism regardless of subject matter. I understand your point that criticism should be from more than one individual rather than (from your POV) a "jealous director". However, it was a high profile row which sparked a wider conversation, therefore the weight should be placed on the importance of the discussion rather than lack of voices on one side.
Perhaps more comments from the Django Unchained/Use of racial slurs and portrayal of slavery section could be added. Then there will be more critics so the header and the amendment as a remark specific to Spike Lee isn't required. Denzel Washington had a spat with Tarantino regarding the racist dialogue on Crimson Tide; predating Lee's comments, so not really fringe.
Also if we use the same rule-of-measurement, then it's unclear why you have removed criticism regarding "depictions of violence" of which there are many detractors. That discussion continues to bother Tarantino as documented in this article. Rvert (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Its a policy issue, the LEAD summarizes, lets not try to create some false balance here. The second sentence says "His films are characterized by stylized violence, extended dialogue often with profanity, and references to popular culture." So what are you suggesting to add to the LEAD, that some people dont like the violence? Seems pretty obvious there would be opinions on both sides of this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Second sentence accepts that violence is part of Tarantino's stye. There isn't anything in the lead saying that style received criticism. I don't think BBFC banning Reservoir Dogs on video are some people. Not saying he's received any pushback makes the final para look like a hagiography.
I see you've changed the header regardless. To avoid a back and forth with this, I'll agree to your Spike Lee amendment and retain the violence criticism in the lead. Therefore the new lead sentence will read: Tarantino's depictions of violence have been subject to criticism and his films banned in certain countries, whilst his defence is that "violence is so good. It affects audiences in a big way". Rvert (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
First add some other criticism views to the body, then summarize it in the WP:LEAD. You have pointed to some criticism in other adjacent articles, that is not how it works. Move that content to this article in the body, then summarize it in the body of this article. Your suggestion to go back to putting the Spike Lee POV in the lead in wikivoice is not acceptable. If you first have added other similar views to this article, then summarize it in wikivoice on this article, it might be a different matter. Understand? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree that Lee's opinion doesn't belong in the wikivoice in the lead. It's fine to mention later in the article, but that doesn't justify inclusion in the lead. Nemov (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I think y'all missed the point. I've put the new LEAD sentence in bold above to help you. I'll repeat it here again:
Tarantino's depictions of violence have been subject to criticism and his films banned in certain countries, whilst his defence is that "violence is so good. It affects audiences in a big way".
No additional info required as the details are a summary taken from the main body. NO Spike Lee in the LEAD. Rvert (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
And no to wikivoice that summarizes Spike Lee. that Seems to be what you are proposing? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Correct. Rvert (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that that sentence replace the existing "His films are characterized by stylized violence, extended dialogue often with profanity, and references to popular culture."? Having a statement of criticism (there always is) followed by a single quote (out of a great many statements he's made about such criticism) in the lede sentence seems wildly undue. The existing sentence is a terse, broad-view summary that's accurate. Litigating the endless back and forth regarding criticism of his films and a single, select response from him isn't an encyclopedic opening.  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
And we are not going to add quotes to the LEAD. This is starting to be absurd, drop the stick, you have three different editors saying no here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
You've missed the point again. It's replacing the removed sentence to the last paragraph in the LEAD. Here.
We can remove the quote. Therefore it reads:
Tarantino's depictions of violence have been subject to criticism and his films banned in certain countries, whilst his defence is that "violence is so good. It affects audiences in a big way".
I'm upholding WP:BLPBALANCE btw. Rvert (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
No to all of this. "certain countries" is WP:WEASEL and you are seeking to summarize the Spike Lee position in wikivoice. None of this works. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
You're right, so redrafted the sentence below. I've told you before, I have no intention of including Spike's comments in the lead. It would help if you worked constructively as you were supportive before and felt it was DUE. I'd appreciate your advice on improving rather than removing. My goal is to balance out the last para in the lead which is mainly praise. Rvert (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
"[...] and his films banned in certain countries". While I haven't reviewed the article in close detail, nowhere can I find any mention that any of his films have been banned. Unless the body has significant discussion about this claim, you can't add that to the lede - or anywhere in the article, not without specifics. Why are you trying to add things to the lede that don't even exist in the article?  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
See the first para in the "Style" and "Views on gun violence" sections. Here's a couple of sources to give you context [1][2]. I've decided to retain this detail you've highlighted to make the sentence more concise so its now a moot point. See redraft below. Rvert (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As discussed above. The first sentence to the last paragraph in the lead/lede was removed here. It will be replaced with the following redrafted sentence to balance out the praise in that paragraph in accordance with WP:BLPBALANCE policy:

Tarantino's depictions of violence have been subject to criticism, including films being banned.
Hope this helps. Rvert (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No it doesnt work. Please stop to WP:BLUDGEON in your unsourced content on this issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf Why are you you providing misinformation to editors? The sourced content exists in the "Style" and "Views on gun violence and police brutality" sections. I'll repeat, it would help if you worked constructively as you were supportive before and felt it was DUE here.
You said: ... feel free to add something about the depictions of violence criticism if you think that is DUE for the LEAD, seems DUE.
Thanks for the advice. I've changed the sentence above to include banned films. It also has nothing to do with the Spike Lee weight issue. Therefore feel free to open a separate thread regarding "depictions of violence criticism" if you disagree. If not, I'll go ahead with the replacement sentence for the one you removed in the LEAD. Rvert (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I continue to disagree and I object to your constant assertions that if nobody objects you will go ahead and make the change of content that you know is controversial and disputed. Please stop. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Much of the Spike Lee section could be moved to the films he's criticizes. The entire "controversies" section is too long and could be removed and folded into the film career section. It seems this article leans too heavy on including every source that's ever written an article about the subject. Nemov (talk)
Agree this would be better. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

In the 1st paragraph, it states Q.T.'s 1st movie was Reservoir Dogs in '92 (correct.) Then that his 2nd movie was Pulp Fiction in '94 (semi- correct, I guess). It doesn't mention True Romance in '93. He wrote, but did not direct it. I think this should be included to make the intro more accurate. I have copied & pasted the following directly from the Wikipedia page for True Romance.
"True Romance[a] is a 1993 American romantic crime film directed by Tony Scott and written by Quentin Tarantino" RebelMe76 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The lead is a summary of the whole article.  True Romance is in the main body of the article. Tarantino was involved in many screenplays outside the films he directed (see section 1990-1999: Breakthrough and acclaim). The focus of the summary has been where he has two major credits. Rvert (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove the line that Quinten considers Kill Bill Volume 1 and Volume 2 to be two seperate films. In a podcast with Joe Rogan, when talking about only making 10 movies, Joe Rogan says “Can you pretend Kill Bill is one?” And Quinten says “No.” 75.130.25.197 (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide a link to the podcast episode in question. Aston305 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Worth noting that in the body of the article, Tarantino is said to consider the two movies as one, and it's sourced. I think at best we could say that he's made contradictory statements on the matter.  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
I would also argue that on the podcast he may have intended that as "no, i worked on two separate productions," rather than "they are two separate works" Aston305 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

In the second paragraph:
“He then made the exploitation-slasherfilm Death Proof (2007), which was part of a double feature with From Dusk till Dawn director Robert Rodriguez, released under the collective title Grindhouse”
It should say Death Proof was a double feature with Planet Terror, not Dusk Till Dawn. Hungrydawgs48 (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)