Talk:Terrence Malick

message: Well was he born in Waco, Texas or Ottawa, Illinois!?
: This is the first (and appears to be uncited) reference to him being born in Ottawa, Illinois. I'm looking into it now. Liontamarin (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://movies.nytimes.com/person/100893/Terrence-Malick/biography Lists him as being born both in Ottawa and Waco.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2005-12-15-malick_x.htm USA Today says Waco, exclusively.
http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2004/11/04/Entertainment/You-Should.Know.About.terrence.Malick-792745.shtml
Daily Texan cites Waco, Texas.
http://www.austinfilm.org/terrence-malick Austin Film Society says Waco.
There seems to be some confusion as to his birthplace, and I'm changing the article to reflect that. Liontamarin (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Katz is far more authoritative for this kind of information. Furthermore, Katz explains that Malick was born in one place and raised in another, which makes understandable the confusion found in some other, less careful, sources, such as newspapers. The other sources give no indication that they have actually gone out and researched the information, whereas it is hard to explain what Katz writes in any way other than that he has found out this information in some definitive way. One would not write, "X was born in Y and raised in Z" unless one was fairly sure it was the case. Given that there is a plausible explanation for how the other sources may have got it wrong (misled by the fact he was raised in Texas into thinking he was born there, or misled by other sources which were themselves misled in this way), it seems clear to me that Wikipedia should take Katz as authoritative in this matter, until such time as a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise. Mtevfrog (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "it is hard to explain what Katz writes in any way other than he has found out this information in some definitive way." That sounds kind of sketchy to me, but also your claim that the New York TIMES or USA Today do not fact check. I would say, actually, that the New York TIMES and USA Today would be considered far more reputable sources than Katz. It is NOT hard to explain that Katz could have found out the information in some non-definitive way, because he could very well be using an outside source that has flawed information, just as you are suggesting my sources are flawed in some way. Also, to earmark one source as definitive and ignore the fact that there is significant confusion among many, many other sources about where the subject of the article was born is to leave out significant information about the subject. Other biographical articles mention disparities in birthdates and birth places, so I feel that the precedent is set for us to do the same, until a REAL definitive source comes through (like an interview with Terrence Malick). I think both of us would be hard pressed to find a "definitive" piece of evidence, given Malick's noted reclusion, whichi s all the more reason to give his birthplace as "either" Waco or Ottawa, as so many other sources of repute have. Liontamarin (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  ALSO, your version (and I'm assuming the Katz version) leaves out all mention of Waco, Texas, stating he moved directly from Ottawa to Austin. It seems funny that Waco is left out entirely when that isn't the case in any other mention, even those that list Ottawa as his birthplace. This is incongruous with the majority of information (that I have seen) about the man.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liontamarin (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Katz states: "Born on Nov. 30, 1943, in Ottawa, Ill. The son of an oil-company executive, he was raised in Waco and Austin, Texas, and Bartlesville, Oklahoma." So you are incorrect about Katz leaving out Waco, and it seems as though you are fishing to find reasons to doubt Katz. I find your argument unconvincing: Katz definitely gives me the impression he knows where Malick was born and where he was raised, with greater detail and more specific information than the other sources. Mtevfrog (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what impression Katz gives. Just because it is confidently written does not mean that it is not as faulty as any other information. There's not reason to be going on and on about this, multiple, reputable sources state two different points of view on the subject. We should present this fact in the article, as is done with other articles. It is not our job to attempt to guess which source is reputable or not. The argument here is not about presenting a definite fact, because the FACT remains that there is, among other source-able material, a difference of opinion about where he was born.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liontamarin (talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with being "confidently written." Do whatever pleases you, but I believe Wikipedia is the poorer for it. Mtevfrog (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have changed the "early life" portion where it claimed that he was born in "Ottawa or Waco" to Ottawa. It matches his birthplace in the bio box. Jzapata95 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Where was he born!?

message: Not sure if this article should reflect the current gossip about the film, whatever it might be, unless there is some real evidence for it. I looked for some but did not find anything substantial. I would guess a piece in Variety or some industry mag. would be great, but all I found was this at 'Ain't it cool news': http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=20485. The same could be said about other bits of info, e.g. "According to The New World producer Sarah Green..."
Since Malick is such a mysterious figure I would think some citations, beyond the references, would help this article, and also give readers some direction if they want to do more research or reading on malick. 
--Gottg135 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations and The Tree of Life

message: Please do not change Assyrian-American TO Lebanese-American if you do not have any proof
--67.166.133.88 02:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assyrian-American TO Lebanese-American

message: The following sentence in the artcicle is possibly misleading:
"complaints that his films, although beautiful, are often overlong and ponderous"
Quite to the contrary, Badlands and Days of Heaven are noted for their brevity (both run at 90 minutes). I agree that criticism of over-length have been applied to his last two features (which, hey let's face it, were bloody long). Perhaps this distinction should be made? Strummer72 09:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlong? Is this accurate? 

message: Can someone please source the Malick photo? I uploaded it, but I'm not sure how to credit the image to remove the deletion warning. Please do this within one week of Oct. 14, 2006. Thanks. --Anon. 05:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Malick's Picture

message: I see that there has been some recent revert-warring on this article, but without corresponding discussion at the talkpage.  Please, instead of edit-warring, instead follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.  As soon as reverting starts, please post a note to the talkpage explaining why you are reverting.  This increases the likelihood that a compromise may be found, or that other editors may be able to comment to help define a consensus on how the dispute should be handled.  Thanks, --Elonka 21:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit-warring

message: This section needs to be verifiable.  Please add citations.--Davmpls 03:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life 

message: Section needs to be verifiable.  Please add citations.--Davmpls 03:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film career 

message: Please add citations verifying the facts.--Davmpls 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: Is the section too long?
Do each of these items contain substantial information about Malick?
The following citations should be edited to include page numbers and/or articles and/or chapters since the whole book(s) are not about Malick:
*Peter Biskind, 1998. Easy Riders / Raging Bulls, London: Bloomsbury.
*Stanley Cavell, 1979. The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film, Enlarged Edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
*Michel Chion, 1999. The Voice in Cinema, translated by Claudia Gorbman, New York & Chichester: Columbia University Press.
*Les Keyser, 1981. Hollywood in the Seventies, London: Tantivy Press.
Dead reference removed:
*# Liv Torgerson, 1999. ‘Conversations with Billy Weber and Leslie Jones’, Motion Picture Editors Guild Newsletter
--Davmpls 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: "His work is often characterized by naturalist cinematography" - Can anyone explain what this proposition means? --IRONY-POLICE (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that it means, his movies spend a considerable amount of time focusing on plants and animals. By the way, what do you mean by "purpleness"?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpleness 

message: I've been tidying up the Film career subsection today, adding references and what not. This sentence was added by a previous editor:
:Head of the jury, Robert De Niro, said it was difficult to choose a winner, but The Tree of Life "ultimately fit the bill". De Niro explained, "It had the size, the importance, the intention, whatever you want to call it, that seemed to fit the prize."
I love Bobby De Niro, but does this sentence really add to the article? It's pretty bland and probably could have been said about any Palm d'Or winner. Would anyone be opposed to me removing it? A Traintalk 11:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Niro quote on Palm d'Or win 

message: I've changed the title for the upcoming film which had been rumored to be called The Burial to what they refer to it in The Tree of Life press-book. It's better than having a rumored title.
TheSecondWaltz (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: The article currently states that Malick left Oxford after a disagreement with the well-known philosopher Gilbert Ryle.  No citation is given, but this is the sort of thing that should really be sourced.  Of course, it's no crime to have disagreed with Ryle, but...it might be regarded as a bit of a negative assertion, and so in my opinion it should be kept only if it can be backed up.  Does anyone have any more information about this? Kevin Nelson (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As no one has provided a source, I have removed the assertion from the article.  Of course, it can be put back in if someone provides a source.  Kevin Nelson (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any source for his disagreement with Gilbert Ryle? 

message: Why doesn't this already-filmed film have its own article?  I thought the Wikipedia rules were that as long as something is filming, it could have its own article.  This film is in post, with re-shoots.  Worthy or not?  Thanks all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.177.100 (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's best not to create one until enough information is released to build a good article. That's my opinion.TheSecondWaltz (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled Love Story 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:TerrenceMalick.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: His father Emil Malick: worked for Phillips Petroleum; and was of Lebanese ancestry and mother Irene Malick: of Irish extraction; originally from the Chicago area should you include this in Terrence Malick Early Life.Total Film Magazine did a story on Terrence Mallick in 2012 and mentioned his mother was of Irish Descent. Source http://sg.movies.yahoo.com/Terrence+Malick/biography/61994/ www.totalfilm.com/ - United Kingdom  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny 80y (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should you include Terrence Malick  Parents Ancestry 

message: By the dictionary definition, a bibliography is either a list of works about a topic or "a list of works written by an author." The References section in this article could also be called a bibliography under that definition, but since that's a separate section unto itself, that means a section titled Bibliography consists of "works written by an author."
An interview is not something "written by" Malick, so the interview would go under References. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: I know that most biographies mention him writing for the New Yorker, but this appears to be just an oft-quoted myth. A quick search of the New Yorker archives turns up no articles written by Malick. Not sure how to cite this, but it really seems unlikely that he would write for the magazine in the first place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.170.91 (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New Yorker Articles

message: Dan56,
The material you deleted was not poorly sourced at all. If a film stands at #8 on TSPDT's list of the 21st century's most acclaimed films, then it stands to reason that many regard the work as one of the great films of the 21st century. The two other sources to have been cited are reliable as well.
Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you cited is a self-published source, run by Bill Georgaris (). You're misusing the other sources and going beyond what they actually verify. It's appropriate to use the BBC Culture article to cite the idea that "The Tree of Life was voted the 79th greatest American film of all time in BBC Culture's 2015 poll of 62 international film critics." That's not what you used it for. We're supposed to summarize what sources say in our own words, yes, but not put words in their figurative mouths. And this article is a biography; there's a notice about sources that shows when you edit such an article, warning you about "taking extra care to use high-quality sources". Also, the rest of your summary in that paragraph is not based on what's in the article and requires verification; "Although Malick's films of the 20th century were widely acclaimed, his later films have polarized critics." [and] "his increasing disregard of conventional narrative is criticized as pretentious and self-indulgent by some, while others consider him to have a visionary style and approach"... according to whom? If there is a source that explicitly discusses the reception to Malick's body of work, that would both verify what can be said about it and justify its notability/inclusion to the lead. Dan56 (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

text: , what part of original research don't you understand? You clearly didn't read the guidelines I said you ought to. "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". The sources must reach those conclusions, not you. And I suggested you're a fan of Malick because his face is plastered on your user page. Your edits here suggest you don't comprehend what original research is. So you're idea of good research is taking one film critic's quote regarding one of Malick's recent films and using it to support the statement "his films since are viewed by some as visionary", and doing the same for another sentence fragment? How does Peter Travers writing that To the Wonder was a "beautifully empty exercise" verify the "fact" that "others [saw his films] as indulgent and overly experimental in style and narrative"?? Stop it. Either find a source that verifies 'exactly' what you are writing in the lead, or focus your efforts away from the lead, because you're not improving it. Dan56 (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Material needs to exist first in the article for it to be summarized in the lead; it doesn't in this case. TSPDT is not a high-quality source for biographical information on Terrence Malick, and it's a questionable source to begin with (WP:SPS); biographical books on Malick would be great instead. I see Metacritic says Knight of Cups and To the Wonder received "mixed or average reviews" (), The New World received "generally favorable reviews" (), and The Tree of Life received "universal acclaim" (). I don't see how this adds up to "his later films have possessed increasing disregard of conventional narrative and have received divisive responses from critics, with some who criticize his filmmaking to be self-indulgent and meandering, while others praise him for having a visionary style and approach." You keep saying "less biased"; bias involves pushing a particular perspective--in this case, yours--which you are doing. As it is now, one is left with the impression that Roger Ebert felt this way about Terrence Malick. Also, by connecting the clause about Malick's earlier films being acclaim to the clause about his later films receiving divided responses, you're positing a relationship that isn't made by any source. Your summary isn't accurate or neutral, so SYNTH is not summary doesn't apply; you "produced a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources". Dan56 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

text: As I have said before, biographical articles demand higher-quality sources than the self-published blog of a film critic. Dan56 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

text: The Tree of Life is not the topic of the lead; Malick is. You're too focused on "determining the acclaim" of his movies rather than researching the best sources on the topic of this article, which would tell you what's notable to include in the lead. You're working backwards, and as I said before, stringing along review quotes and Metacritic entries doesn't verify your original thesis. Dan56 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to The Guardian, "The Tree of Life has divided both critics and ­audiences" () Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Umm, no, I didn't do the opposite of what I've been "professing". I've been professing citing sources for what you add and accurately reflecting what they verify; In The Cinema of Terrence Malick, Hannah Patterson writes regarding Badlands, "the majority of critics at the time of the film's release were in agreement that Badlands was an assured debut, heralding a new and original talent" (p. 3); on the next page, she writes of Days of Heaven, "once again, the film received critical acclaim, winning...". She goes on to write, "The Thin Red Line greatly divided critical opinion" (there is an entire chapter in the book dedicated to critical response to the film). Of The New World, she writes, "the film's critical reception was split". This is just citing the introduction to the book. It'd behoove the both of you to dig deeper in this book if you're interested in improving this article at all, because this paragraph you've added is original research. Dan56 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

text: "As shown by its placements, for example, on...", "it has since grown in stature" ... this is quite literally the definition of original research; it's not up to you to determine what that is an example of or what those two polls mean for the film. And you continue to overlook the questionable quality of your sources. But it's fine. WP:NOR often eludes even experienced editors: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." You haven't demonstrated this. I feel like I'm communicating with a wall. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I think you're placing too much weight in a film critic's blog because it suggests something favorable in your mind about the film. Here's another source saying the film divided critics (Patheos); according to Lee Caruthers, the film received "divided responses ... for many critics, Malick's project possessed admirable qualities, but remained basically unwieldy or excessive as a cinematic object". And I'll say it again: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." I can do the work for you, but it'd be a shame if nothing is learned from this by you. Dan56 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding a deleted paragraph in the lead 

message: * Yes AndrewOne (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *  was referring to this revision (19 October 2016), when AndrewOne reinserted original research. Dan56 (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes 

message: This claim "Larry intentionally broke his own hands due to pressure over his musical studies" is apocryphal.  All works about Malick cite Biskind's book as the source but Biskind himself gives no source for it's origin.  I think this kind of wild claim needs corroboration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.214.174 (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry Malick 

message: , I apologize for not noticing that the Google Books citation tool had inserted "author" instead of "editor".  I see that you have now linked the reference online which was what I was trying to accomplish.  I don't see the need for an in-reference quote when the link leads to the exact same text, but if others think it's needed, it's a minor point, and I see that you left my removal of "arguably" in the text - not only was it essay-like, but close paraphrasing of the source. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all fine. Dan56 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguably 

message: A. O. Scott in The New York Times on polarizing films in summer 2011 ("Debated Movies: 'The Three of Life..."; August 28, 2011) 
 
Amy Kaufman in the Los Angeles Times ("Independent Films: The Tree of Life...", May 2011):
Eric Ditzian in MTV News ("The Tree of Life: The Cannes Reviews Are In!", May 2011): 
Lee Carruthers in Doing Time: Temporality, Hermeneutics, and Contemporary Cinema (2016), p. 117:
Sorry, but these sources, especially Carruthers' detailed analysis and discussion of the topic of this argument--this film's original reception--are superior and more relevant, in the spirit of sticking to the best sources on the topic. Dan56 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A response of mine can be seen in the above "Discussion" portion of this RfC. AndrewOne (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources reinforcing the current lead 

message: In The Guardian, Ben Child states:
Film Criticism and Digital Cultures: Journalism, Social Media and the Democratization of Opinion, (Critic Xan Brooks, quoted by author Andrew McWhirter):
Rudie Obias of Mental Floss mentions slight divisiveness but reports overall:
Its Metacritic page:
In Theology and the Films of Terrence Malick (Christopher Barnett and Clark J. Elliston, eds.; Routledge):
In a June 2011 National Review article, Ross Douthat reports:
"2011: the year in review" (Nick Page of the British Film Institute):
AndrewOne (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources contradicting the current lead 

message: Dan56,
I think the current lead is far too long-winded and holds irrelevant information; look at most other film directors bio's: they don't mention all that is mentioned in Malick's. People will find out about the polarizing nature of his work in the main article, so they don't need to be told about it in such a rambling fashion in the lead. I personally think it should mention his two early films, hiatus, and the tone of the films after his return to cinema, plus a small mention of their polarizing nature. To mention their critical standing almost twice over, and that critics are divided on these films, and then to include To the Wonder as even more divided, seems like serious overkill. "These films were marked by philosophical and spiritual overtones, as well as the use of meditative voice-overs from individual characters, and initially polarized audiences and critics; some felt these elements made the films engaging and unique while others found them pretentious and gratuitous. Their critical standing improved over time; The Tree of Life has since been named as Malick's most acclaimed film, while his next film, 2012's To the Wonder, proved one of his most divisive." — everything in bold is, to me, unnecessary. Hadean-mind (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would understand removing some of it, relocating it elsewhere in the article, but not removing it to the extent you did. I don't see the relevance of other articles. And considering you're argument, I don't see how you can remove that portion, but leave the Roger Ebert quote. Dan56 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Hadean-mind, I consider some of your recent edits to be better than others. By mentioning some major awards won by him, for example, you added relevant information. I disagree, however, with your view that the lead, with regards to critical reception, should simply say that Malick's works "have polarized audiences and critics". It is an incomplete account, and in the case of his directorial debut, simply inaccurate. Badlands was never a significantly divisive work. Ryan Gilbey states in The Guardian that upon its 1973 premiere in New York, "the reception it received overshadowed even Scorsese's Mean Streets, which played at the same festival." David Thomson, one of the most respected living film critics, reports that by "common consent, his first film, Badlands (1973), was one of the most remarkable first feature films made in America." It was well-received then and is highly regarded now. His four films following it are highly regarded as well. A lead section cannot simply leave out mentioning of modern opinion. Where would readers be if the lead section for Stanley Kubrick's page was only concerned with initial reviews of his films? What if the lead section for the page on Socrates only covered contemporaries' opinions of him? Surely we can agree that it would not be a very comprehensive account of the subject's life and notability. Regarding the quote from Roger Ebert, I agree with Dan56 that it does not need to be in the lead – though I don't think that its inclusion there amounts necessarily to "fanboy"-ism as Dan56 initially stated (which would depend on what else is also in the lead section), but simply to undue weight as he later said. (On a side note, Hadean-mind, when wanting to tag other editors in the future, don't put any spaces between the "User:" and the first writing of the username.) AndrewOne (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

text: It is no more biased and unnecessary than mentioning that The Thin Red Line and The Tree of Life were "awarded the Golden Bear at the 49th Berlin International Film Festival and the Palme d'Or at the 64th Cannes Film Festival, respectively." Dan56 (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

text: A Google search of the phrases "polarizing" and "Malick" will quickly demonstrate it's quite a prominent viewpoint (, , , , , , ). Dan56 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlong lead? 

message: Can you explain what you were doing with this edit?  There is no edit summary.
--David Tornheim (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I moved mentioning of the awards up, since they are closer in date to the film's original release than to the present. I also deleted "drastically, eventually becoming Malick's most acclaimed work" because the first word is unnecessary and the source didn't state as fact that The Tree of Life is the director's most acclaimed film. You could make a case that his first two films have received greater praise. AndrewOne (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, it says "arguably his most acclaimed work".  I would not object to including that as a quote by the author of the text, unless other quality WP:RS does not agree.  --David Tornheim (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  Weird.  I did not get your ping.  It looks like you did it right by making sure to update your signature with ~~~~ when you added the ping template.  I think the ping template must be buggy.  I have seen this before.  --David Tornheim (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Tree of Life 

message: There's a cite error - a reference to an undefined referenced "Michaels".  , it looks like you added it, so maybe you know what the correct attribution should be.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite error 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Terrence Malick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527125451/http://www.zindamagazine.com/html/archives/1999/feb1_1999.htm to http://www.zindamagazine.com/html/archives/1999/feb1_1999.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103105823/http://www.wearefilmnation.com/news/2011/11/1/filmnation-continues-relationship-with-terrence-malick-on-tw.html to http://www.wearefilmnation.com/news/2011/11/1/filmnation-continues-relationship-with-terrence-malick-on-tw.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just spoke to one of my relatives who is in his 90s.  He grew up in Urmia, worked as a civil engineer and left in the years following the Iranian Revolution.  I asked him about the different ethnic and religious groups when he was growing up there and he described it as being very pluralistic.  He said there were Muslims, Christians and some minorities like Jews, Baháʼí and Zoroastrians.
I asked specifically asked if he ever knew of the presence of any Lebanese Muslims, or Lebanese Christians in Urmia when he was young.  He said that there were definitely none.
I would be curious to know what church Terry's father went to.  Assyrian and Armenian Christians in that part of the world tend to have a strong ethnoreligious/ethnolinguistic identity underscored by denoting their ethnicity in their church denomination (ex. Assyrian Church of the East, Armenian Apostolic Church) and the services being at least partly in the respective language (ex. Aramaic, Armenian.)  There doesn't seem to be such ethnoreligous churches like the Lebanese Maronite Church in Urmia with the respective language like Lebanese Arabic.  Lebanese people are amazing with a fascinating and unique culture, but it seems unlikely he is actually Lebanese.
I agree that much is being made of his ethnicity, but considering how underrepresented and often typecasted middle eastern people are in Hollywood, I can understand the intention behind certain ethnic groups for wanting to say someone like Terry is of their ethnicity.
(I'm on a work VPN network so this IP is shared by several users) 8.18.220.189 (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity Dispute