Talk:Eyes Wide Shut/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interpretation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, this section is really bad. I am going to slowly rewrite it. I began with the 'mise en scène' segment . 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)

text: Ditto for the theatricality section; please double-check my edits  The Singing Badger 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic features

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ziegler 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Critical Response is unjustly biased 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jungian edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overly long or excessively detailed plot 

message: 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)
replies: text: First, it does not matter which editor adds a link if it violates WP:EL it violates it. Second, based on this edit  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)

text: 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.
#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?
#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.
#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)
thread_title: Scrooby

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Kubrick links

message: 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)
thread_title: Link discussion: arbitary section break

message: "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)
thread_title:  some remarks