Talk:12 Monkeys

message: The Development section states that "Universal took longer than expected to approve 12 Monkeys, although Gilliam had two stars (Willis and Pitt)..."  However, the Casting section states that "Pitt was cast for a comparatively small salary, as he was still relatively unknown at the time."  These seem to be contradictory, and unfortunately the references for these are not available online (Christie's book and the DVD production notes).  Could someone with access to both of these sources check them to see if this is a transcription error, or if the sources are contradictory?   RobRoyDuncan (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to the sources but I don't see them as contradictory. If you look at Pitt's filmography, at the point of 12 Monkeys he didn't have many breakout roles (Seven being the first real one). He was known to the media (and to Gilliam) but he wasn't A-list material at that point. I do agree double checking the wording will help. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

text: "Brad was begging to do it, and I wasn't so sure whether I wanted him. In the end, his enthusiasm sort of won me over. [...] Bruce is one of those guys who became a star very quickly. [...] Brad, on the other hand, was not yet 'the sexiest man in America' when we signed him on. The studio couldn't believe their luck!" Terry Gilliam, interview with Paul Wardle, 1995. Brad Pitt was right on the cusp of becoming a star when 12 Monkeys was in production, and by the time it was released, he was "the sexiest man in America". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brad Pitt: Star or not? 

message: ::::::::::::::While I'm loath to present the appearance of speaking on behalf of other editors, what I'm getting from this is that you don't appear to understand is that, from "our" perspective, we're not not following policy/guidelines. We just appear to have a different interpretation of them than you do. Our interpretation is that if the plot points are "key or complex" then it may (or may not) be helpful to add citations. In this particular case, we neither feel the plot points in question are sufficiently key or complex, nor do we feel that these citations are in fact helpful. For you to satisfy our concerns, you'd need to demonstrate not only that these plot points really are considered sufficiently key or complex that citations might be helpful (via third-party sources or other editors expressing such a concern) but also that the citations you're providing actually are helpful (which I think could only be satisfied by other editors saying as much). Simply stating that we're not providing valid reasons to not follow policy/guidelines isn't likely to be sufficient to sway anyone, because from our POV we are following them, just not the way you believe they're intended to be interpreted. However, I would note that even if we were blatantly ignoring policy/guidelines, WP:IAR might be considered a valid option given the number of editors who have weighed in on the matter. DonIago (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has denied that's not a key plot point, but again, the wording on when to include such citations is "may", not "must". The film clearly explains this, it's not a buried line but established way early in the film. As such, given that the film serves implicitly as the source, no one else feels that we have to cite these. We're following the guideline which provides optional advice. --Masem (t) 14:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  DonIago just did: "we neither feel the plot points in question are sufficiently key or complex, nor [...]" but as I said what anybody on Wikipedia feels about the plot points is no longer relevant because there are reliable secondary sources that name it as a key or complex plot point.  Again this is not a have to or must case. Article ownership is about taking two versions and reverting to one without a valid reason. Your reasons (and by "your" I mean everybody in this talk page thread) amount to "it's optional", "it's not needed", "it's not required", "it's not a must", "we don't have to do it" and so on, all of which is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. The versions aren't even equivalent; the version with the references is supported by the guideline, while removing the references is completely arbitrary and without any specified reason, i.e. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 17:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OWN would make sense if only one or two editors were trying to keep the sources out while multiple editors were suggesting that it should be added. This situation is reversed; multiple editors have suggested the sources are not needed, and you seem to be the only one wanting them included. Technically, that's OWNership the other way, towards you, trying to conform the article to what you want. We had a consensus discussion over whether we implement something that policy/guidelines says is optional. Consensus has decided not to include that. Continuing to argue against consensus falls under WP:TE. --Masem (t) 17:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, this shows a deep misunderstanding of OWN. My edit is backed by policy and guideline. The revert is backed by "not needed". It doesn't matter how many people think it's not needed; if "not needed" is their sole reason (as reviewed above), that's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 17:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consensus is not mob rule. If consensus is not backed by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's exactly the same as article ownership. Bright☀ 17:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep missing a key point: no policy or guideline requires the sources you want. It is an optional aspect. Both sides (you, and the rest of us) have a fair argument backed by policy and guideline. And given this is an either/or option, consensus is going to come down to looking like a democratic vote rather than a compromise. --Masem (t) 17:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been through this before: there's hardly anything that Wikipedia policies or guidelines require. Most article-improving policies and guidelines are an "optional aspect". However, the policy says editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible and I have added sourcing. Which means, if you wish to remove it, you have to have a reason better than "not needed", "optional aspect", and so on. "It's not required" is not a policy- or guideline-backed argument, in fact (as I have already said again and again) it's against policy to revert an edit because it's "not needed". It's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. Bright☀ 17:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's not required" is a guideline-based argument - plot summaries are implicitly sourced to the work itself and do not require sourcing. And keep in mind, guidelines here are meant to be descriptive and subject to interpretation as needed, they are not rules as you are trying to force on us here. --Masem (t) 17:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  - no. You are taking two versions, one that is encouraged by policy and one that is merely sufficient, and you are assigning priority based on "not required". That is ownership, literally following the example given on WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I am concerned that a Wikipedia administrator thinks that "not needed" is a reason to revert an edit that a policy deems "encouraged", and doesn't understand that reverting because something is "not needed" is article ownership. Bright☀ 18:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Another admin that's clueless about Wikipedia policies? Pointing out that a certain behavior is article ownership is nowhere near a personal attack, nor is pointing out that an administrator such as yourself is ignorant of Wikipedia policies such as WP:PERSONAL and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 20:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I've started a discussion about ownership behavior that's indicated by reverting "unnecessary" changes without claiming they're detrimental. Perhaps later I'll start a discussion about what differentiates personal attacks from saying someone is acting against Wikipedia policy while quoting that policy and showing that there's a very good correlation between that person's behavior and the behavior described in the policy. Bright☀ 21:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Second arbitrary break for length

message: You are invited to participate in the discussion on RfC: Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections. Since the main argument here is that there is "no consensus" for adding sources despite the guideline clearly stating that this is encouraged, I have started an RfC about the guideline itself to gauge whether there is consensus for it. Bright☀ 13:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I support excluding these primary-source inline citations because they are unnecessary and encroaching on secondary-source use in their attempt to resolve something that is not straightforward. If any inline citations are to be used here, they should be from secondary sources. It is circuitous to try to resolve a contentious understanding of the primary source by using the primary source itself. If we have to sort through the film's dialogue to figure out how to interpret it and go so far to cite it, then it's time to resort to secondary sources. Considering the perpetual contentiousness of the plot summary, perhaps it would be better to reference the plot in its entirety from a b:ook about the film or the director. That way we can lock in a fair description. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no interpretation, and there is no requirement for inline citations to be from secondary sources. Regardless, this is not what the RfC is about. Bright☀ 17:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: The RfC was  with the following summary:
Can anyone articulate why these references are "deemed inappropriate" with reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense? Reasons that are  should not be raised. I'll start you off:
:: because  , and for that reason , and .
# policy, guideline
# by having exact quotes and timecodes
# Klosterman, 2009
#WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, WP:CONSENSUS#Through discussion
# WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
All you have to do is refute any part of that argument. Or make your own! As long as you actually have a valid argument according to Wikipedia policies, sources, and common sense. My argument is, because adding the references is supported by the guideline, then the revert and subsequent consensus-by-mob is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 10:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed the part of the third statement in the closing summary involving the phrase "deemed inappropriate". In this case, I would say that the references you have been inserting have been "deemed inappropriate" and encourage you to drop the stick before matters escalate further. I see no requirement that editors stipulate why they feel the references are inappropriate (regardless of the fact that failing to do so may weaken their arguments), and your repeated requests (bordering on demands) that editors provide reasoning they are not required to provide seems inappropriate. If you are asking simply to satisfy your own curiosity, I might advocate for a less confrontational approach. DonIago (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's because you're ignorant of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Read up. Willingly ignorant, I might add, since I quoted the relevant section above. Bright☀ 09:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: How does removing the references improve the article