Talk:Fight Club/Archive 2

fight club is not an anti-modernist film?!
Someone remove this category recently. So far only one person has disputed this category, while this has been up for some time now. Personally, I can't think of a better movie to represent this category, despite the fact that the authors themselves define this movie in such away, namely during the movie's commentary, on the dvd version. The argument of the article not reflecting that view has got nothing to do with the movie genre itself. If the article can't express something that is factual concerning the definition of the movie, than it is the article that must be changed.Maziotis 14:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a lot of unreferenced, unencyclopedic information up for some time, but that doesn't qualify for it to be kept. If the directors define this film specifically as anti-modernist, then please include that information somewhere in the article with a citation.  Otherwise, the unreferenced categorization does not reflect any claim currently made in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

But, as I explained before, I don't think the categories are meant to reflect the article, but the subject of the article itself. How is it that you don't consider the storyline of the film a critique to the industrial/consumerist society? If the article doesn't reflect that, maybe we should rewrite some parts so that it would.

I am still having some difficulty in understanding exactly what is your problem. Are you contesting that the movie is anti-modernist or that the article is anti-modernist. If it is the article, your argument makes no sense, since it cannot be a reference to itself.

Anyway, I will look for the dvd commentary citation.Maziotis 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean that the article should cover the themes of the film so the categories can reflect that. The category in question is more in-depth than an English-language film category, and there should be something in the article that details that with citation.  That's why I also removed the Cult film category -- there's nothing in the article that defines it as a cult film.  Hope that makes sense. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is poor use of terminology. What does 'modernist' mean? In art and literary history, it refers to "the idea that the traditional forms of art, literature, religious faith, social organization and daily life have become outdated, therefore it is essential to sweep them aside". But Maziotis seems to be using 'anti-modernist' to mean specifically 'anti-consumerist'. Better choice of words would be a good start. Cop 633 16:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems like something to address with the category iself. I'm only letting the category stay because I don't disagree that Fight Club is an anti-modernist (or anti-consumerist) film.  I plan to find citation that will reflect its anti-corporate nature. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

anarcho-primitivst influences
I put an example, in the "influences" section, where the movie is interpreted for its supposed luddite views. It was deleted on the grounds of being original research. I would like to know why, since it was put with the proper sources. Also, I can find various other sources relating "fight club" with the unabomber ideas.~

Is the problem the fact that the movie can be interpreted as a non-anarchoprimitivst movie? If so, it should not be a problem, since the point of the "influences" section is precisely to show the various different interpretations made, concerning the argument of the movie.Maziotis 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation does not meet any of the criteria for reliable sources. In addition, the author (who does not present any sort of authority on the topic) does not actually address the film until the end in which he/she lists examples to support the thesis without actually explaining why.  I plan to present a thematic section eventually that will explain that the film is not anarcho-primitivism, which was an extreme path for Tyler Durden, and not necessarily one that was correct, according to interviews with Fincher, Norton, and Pitt.  Interpretations of the film's themes should be supported by reliable source -- for instance, this citation by someone with a Ph.D is far more authoritative than this anonymous author of the citation you presented. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

the author (who does not present any sort of authority on the topic) Which type of authority are you looking for? the reference in questioning is about people interpreting the movie within their own field of ideology or expertise. Obviously he who finds nietzschian influences on the "fight club" movie should not be judge by his ability to make movies, or by his views as a movie critic, but by his knowledge as a philosopher. It so happens that John Zerzan is the biggest name in "anarcho-primitivist" philosophy, besides the fact that he is actually a very well-know public person since the riots in Seattle, in 2001. Just because you personally don't know him, doesn't mean the author is an anonymous author. So, this is a reliable source. The fact that you can make other interpretations of the movie doesn’t deny others.Maziotis 22:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant to say noncredible author. From that citation, I can't recognize his authority based on his name alone.  In addition, the website is extremely simplistic, which weakens its reliability.  If Zerzan's passage was presented in The New York Times or a similarly authoritative source that recognizes him, that would be acceptable.  However, like I said, Fight Club is mentioned at the very end of that citation, and the author makes no direct connections between Fight Club and his message.  You chose to make a connection with Tyler's speech about Rockefeller and kudzu vines.  I also do not see the Unabomber mentioned in that citation, either.  Please read Wikipedia's policy of no original research -- you cannot add your own views on top of a citation, particularly one that is already shaky. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your recognition was never asked. Since when does wikipedia only accept sources published by "new york times" or what you perceive as being a similar publication? This website is not the only one publishing his articles, and you can buy his books in several bookstores. So, where is your credibility to question his authority? He is cited by many academics. Why don't you do your own research? The only source that I’m obliged to provide, I gave in the article. If you look for his biography, you will see that it was you who was ignorant to the fact that he is not an anonymous author

Concerning the Unabomber reference, I can give you other sources from movie review websites, which reveals an expressive connection of interpretation between those views, in public. But right now I’m concerned with Zerzan's reference. Please note that the Tyler's speech is not in connection with it. It follows the explanation of what represents an "anarcho-primitivist" revolution. The citation is there as an example within multiple found on the movie, that relates to this.Maziotis 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Easy on the attitude. I told you that the citation does not meet the criteria for being a reliable source.  It's a guideline, not my opinion.  Citations are supposed to be authoritative in nature.  I cannot identify the credibility of John Zerzan from that particular citation, and the citation does not even make any kind of direct reference to the film itself.  I've used Google News Archive and Access World News to look for the keywords "john zerzan" "fight club" and did not come up with any results.  Google Scholar does not produce anything, either.  The New York Times is merely an example of what would be considered a reliable source.  If you wish, we can use the help desk to get independent opinions on the authenticity of your citation, if you're not convinced by my arguments.


 * In addition, if parallels have been made between Tyler Durden and the Unabomber, then that information needs to be cited. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be cited, especially theories that are put forth.  As for Tyler's speech, you are still using original research to make a connection between his dialogue and the theme of anarcho-primitivism.  A citation needs to be provided in comparing that speech to the theme in question.  Your sole citation does not do this or make any direct reference to the film.  If you have additional citations that support this theme, they would need to meet the criteria for reliable sources as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What was it about my attitude that you do not approve? I understand the difference between policy and opinion. I guess what I was saying is that I believe you are wrong in your interpretation of the policy. Please explain exactly how John Zerzan is not credible as a reliable source, in response to my arguments/questions. If you want, you can try my method of searching: Go to google and type, “fight club unabomber”. I don’t see your method as being the required for wikipedia source research.

As for your second paragraph, I completely agree. As I said before, I would like to discuss the reference to John Zerzan first. Then, perhaps, write a sourced reference to the connection to the Unabomber's ideas.

On a personal note, I must say that I feel I am pretty sure that you are wrong since I have, after watching the movie, search for political references, before I knew anything about luddism or anarcho-primitivism. After watching the movie I asked if there were any political/philosophical doctrine that expressed this sort of ideas. This is the reason why I so firmly believe I am not doing original research. You seem to be the first person that came here, and that I have talk to about the movie, that does not see the possible luddite/anarchist interpretations of this movie. So, in light of this, I believe is reasonable to assert that people that are looking for more references of this movie find these sort of leads as very relevant.

The fact that the authors themselves are not anarchist does not change the fact that this encyclopedic article may (by wikipedia principles) have a section about its social impact and more visible political interpretations.Maziotis 00:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Your recognition was never asked" did not sound polite to me. First of all, I don't see any connections that John Zerzan makes to Fight Club other than his (brief) perception that it supports his views.  If this is the point that you are trying to get across, then the information would best belong in the Reception section.  Nothing in the citation indicates that the theme of anarcho-primitivism influencing Fight Club.  I will not yet address the reliable source issue until you disclose the point of the citation.  In addition, if Tyler Durden is going to be compared to the Unabomber, this would be done in the Reception section as well.  Putting the information comparing the two under Influences indicates that the Unabomber helped shape the character of Tyler Durden, and I have not seen any source to support this.  The search techniques that I used limit results to what's been published by newspapers, in books, or by scholars.  A general Google search produces many unreliable sources, such as forum messages, as results.


 * Please read Wikipedia's policy of no original research again. You are providing your personal interpretation, which is original research.  It doesn't matter if I believe if the film possesses interpretations or themes that you have outlined; what matters is that reliable sources are provided that back these ideas.  I'd like to show you this citation in which Norton says, "First of all, it's important to distinguish what a character in the film suggests and what the film suggests. What Tyler is proposing is one half of the dialectic in the film. By the end, the other characters have pulled back from that and the film kind of leaves it in your lap to decide. So whatever Tyler's espousing isn't necessarily to be confused with the message of the film."  From what you've written, you're interpreting that the whole film is in support of the interpretations that you've mentioned.  Review the citation; it's a fairly good example of the actual themes of the film, which seems to center more around the redefinition of self-identity of the everyman. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Your recognition was never asked" is not meant as being a question on my part. I believe that could be the source of confusion. What I meant was to say that your opinion doesn't matter. I hope we have sorted that out.

Well, I definitely meant to argue that the reference to Unabomber and John Zerzan should be a part of the "reception" section. I really did not think much about the meaning of the title “influences”, since I was so carry out in defending what seems to be a very poor job on an article, which does not reflect some common interpretations of a movie, found on mainstream public forums. You must recall that I was trying to bring back a reference establishing a parallel between the Unabomber and the movie. I obviously cannot prove that the Unabomber helped shape Tyler Durden's character, and I never meant to go that way. Maybe you will se my previous points in this discussion in a different light, now that we have clarify this.

I agree that your search techniques limit results to widely recognizable reliable sources. What I don't believe is that those techniques limit the ONLY reliable sources. In this case, in what reception goes, if you use your technique, I believe you will get a very poor result, with only the most conformist and elitist views finding a big expression. One thing is to discuss what big movie intellectual critiques are saying and another is to try to reflect common social notions that a significant number of people share. Both might be present in an encyclopedic article about a movie such as this.Maziotis 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still not in full agreement that your citation is a reliable source. From what you've shown me so far, the only thing you can really say is, "American anarchist and primitivist philosopher John Zerzan has considered Fight Club a film that reflects the rise of alternative consciousness and anti-culture thinking."  There's not any further detail that you can add regarding Zerzan.  I haven't been able to find any citation using even regular Google in which he makes direct correlation to the film.  You can add the citation to the Reception section if you wish, but I may seek independent opinions about how inclusive this information is.  I'm still developing my overhaul of this film article, and I'm addressing themes that are not necessarily anarcho-primitivism, but more about self-identity.  I don't know when I'll be done, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"American anarchist and primitivist philosopher John Zerzan has considered Fight Club a film that reflects the rise of alternative consciousness and anti-culture thinking." That seems to me as a relevant encyclopedic information as far as the reception of the movie concerns, since there are a lot of people who view this movie as a reflection of ideas against industrial society, such as those expressed in the Unabomber’s manifesto. Perhaps you can help me find some article exploring that. I believe it would greatly help the article in exploring further associated themes with the argument of the movie.

I'm still confused on how exactly is John Zerzan an unreliable source to you.Maziotis 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the person that's an unreliable source. It's where the information is coming from.  The site does not show any sign of reputability.  It looks like a personal webpage, and someone who isn't familiar with Zerzan would think that it was some amateur film reviewer.  You know what I mean?  Ebert's review, calling it "macho porn", links to a citation that's part of the Chicago Sun-Times, and the layout looks professional.  While I do not really know if Zerzan's perception of the film is relevant or not, the place where the information is coming from just does not have any kind of professional atmosphere.


 * Honestly, I think that this film is not truly about anarcho-primitivism. I showed you the Reel.com citation in which Norton talks about how there's really two sides.  Tyler Durden and the narrator had a relationship in terms of re-discovering themselves as men (I guess wording like that is why some people think there are homoerotic overtures), but Tyler pursued the revolutionary movement more than the narrator, who just enjoyed having a connection to someone/something.  This is disrupted by Marla Singer, first with the support groups, then with Tyler himself.  The film, from what I've read, does not actually advocate overthrowing society, but encourages breaking out of the cocoon in which society has encased you.  The film's violence is a metaphor for feeling.  Norton said, "[The fights] strip away... the fears of pain, and the reliance on material signifiers of their self-worth."  I think it's more oriented toward self-identity.  Tyler's movement is an extremist perspective.  The British Board of Film Classification made this observation: "The film as a whole is -- quite clearly -- critical and sharply parodic of the amateur fascism which in part it portrays. Its central theme of male machismo (and the anti-social behaviour that flows from it) is emphatically rejected by the central character in the concluding reels."  I hope to expand the article with themes like these. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Part two
Well, one thing is to explore what the movie was written about. In other words, what was the author thinking when he wrote it. Another thing is to explore the most visible interpretations of the movie. Both analyses might be present in the article. As for the second, I already explain you why I believe it is relevant. As for the first, I must tell you that I believe that reading Norton review is not the best place to go. If you want to understand if the movie has anarcho-primitivist influences or not, you should search for the author Chuck Palahniuk. I don't know if you read the book, but the movie is very much faithful to it.

Regarding the atmosphere of the site, I am sorry if I may sound a little bit rude, but I don't care. I think it's important information and I really don't care much about looks. Please show me the wikipedia guideline that supports your claim.Maziotis 09:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Per Reliable sources: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." From reading the article on John Zerzan, the man appears extremist.


 * Per Reliable sources/examples: "Due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." Your source is a personal webpage that is part of a community network that lacks any comments on its reliability.


 * Per Verifiability: "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight." Like I said, the citation was simplistic.  No indication of any fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight.


 * Per Verifiability: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." I have not found any website about Zerzan making any serious correlation between his philosophy and the message of the film.  As I've said, your citation only mentions Fight Club in passing.


 * I will present your citation at the help desk to get independent opinions as to how reliable your source is.


 * In addition, Edward Norton is an absolutely reliable source in understanding the film. He was part of the project and collaborated with Fincher and Pitt in creating it.  If you want to address the specific themes from the book itself, check out Fight Club.  Any observations about the source material cannot apply to its film adaptation.  This is original research -- presenting an argument on your own where there is none to be had.  Observations about the book's themes go to the book's article, and observations about the film's themes go to the film's article.  While I don't disagree that the film is fairly faithful to the book (and I've read it and enjoyed it), there are differences.  For example, it's been observed by Norton, "The ending I think is kind of amplified [into] a more cinematic ending, and in some ways I think it's more shifted toward the redemptive. There's a definite pulling back from Tyler, and [there's] the defeat of Tyler, and everything Tyler is going through."  Here's a passage in which Palahniuk says about his book, not necessarily the film: "That we need to be more comfortable and more accepting of chaos, and things that we see as disastrous. Because it is only through those things we can be redeemed and change. We should welcome disaster, we should welcome things that we generally run away from. There is a redemption available in those things that is available nowhere else."  That can go in the book's article.  I don't have an issue with addressing the book's themes in its respective article, but I've seen from the director and the actor themselves interpretations that are not anarcho-primitivist in nature.  For instance, Fincher has said in Entertainment Weekly, "People say this movie advocates violence, but did M*A*S*H advocate alcoholism? That's how the characters in that movie dealt with their circumstances in Korea. And this is how the characters in this movie deal with their circumstances. This isn't A Clockwork Orange. It was never intended to be. It's a fairy tale, a coming-of-age story about choosing a path to maturity."  This, and Norton's quote as well, clearly shows that the film is not promoting anarcho-primitivism, but instead presents two separate paths, in which it's clear which one the protagonist chooses.  Norton himself says in Interview magazine: A lot of people have been responding to Tyler as a sort of Nietzschean ubermensch in the sense that he's advocating liberation of the human individual through the rejection and destruction of the institutions and value systems that are enslaving us. Now, that's certainly correct. But the tension in the film comes from my character asking, What are the limitations of a nihilistic attitude? It can be enthralling, it can be seductive, it can feel liberating on certain levels. But at what point do the practical applications of it start to become exactly the things they're critiquing, and at what point do Tyler's initiatives start to dehumanize people just as much? I like that the film raises those questions, but then it dumps them in your lap and leaves you to sort it all out instead of supplying you an easy answer."


 * A mention of Tyler Durden being considered the Übermensch would be a perfectly valid addition, but it would need to be counteracted by claims like Norton that the film is not a full advocacy of the nihilistic overman. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion. This is in response to a request for a third opinion. It is clear that some random web page (http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/) is in no way a reliable source for this article. Grouse 16:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can some one archive this discussion when you done it's at least as long as the rest of the talk page. thanks --Nate1481 17:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read the wikipedia guidelines. I believe I understand them, but I don’t agree with the way you interpret them in this case. First of all, John Zerzan is not a self-published author. I perfectly understand that point on its own, but the point you make in reference to this case is totally unrelated: "I have not found any website about Zerzan making any serious correlation between his philosophy and the message of the film. As I've said, your citation only mentions Fight Club in passing." That has got nothing to do with the wikipedia guideline on how we should not rely on self-published authors. As for the article, you can find it in many other sites and also published in his book "Running on Emptiness", widely available. I do not argue that he is an expert on movie critique, but merely that it is relevant, as far as the luddite interpretations goes, to explore this perspective in the article.

Even though this website is not a personal webpage, there would be a problem if, for example, it claimed that a bridge in the city x collapsed in the year 2000, while there is no reputable news website which covers this up. So, of course it makes sense to only accept reliable sources. But to understand what it is a reliable source, you need to understand what is the fact in relation to it. In this case, there should be no problem, since the fact that the anarcho-primitivist author John Zerzan wrote that, is not put into question. There is no doubt about that. If what he says is relevant or not, or in what way, is another point to discuss.

Also, I have found several references of movie critiques connecting the Unabomber with this movie. Some of them, I don't have access to the article because I have to pay.

It is sad to understand how these rules are being manipulated to only reflect a small fraction of elitist mainstream opinions, and not necessarily some of them, which are widely expressed, and with real references found.Maziotis 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you see the third opinion shared by another editor? He states that it's clearly not a reliable source.  Do you need a fourth or fifth opinion?  The guidelines are not going to specifically say, "http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/ is not a reliable source."  It's a matter of interpretation, and mine has been independently backed by another editor.  Furthermore, the citation does not provide any sense of reliability, fact-checking, or editorial oversight that Zerzan actually wrote that.  If it belongs to him, and he's a published writer, then certainly that information has to be published in more prominent areas than a non-notable anarchy community network.  I've looked, and I haven't found anything.  Do you want further input from other editors regarding the reliability of my sources?  You're clearly not convinced by the third opinion and are taking this discussion down an unnecessary path regarding so-called "elitist mainstream opinions" on Wikipedia.  Please stay on the topic of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fourth opinion. The website in question is a questionable source. The edit in question appears to be original research in any case, as it is synthesising information not found in the source. *Mishatx* - In \ Out   21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Part three
Yes, I have read all your opinions, but I was talking about the whole case. First, It should be possible to write a different edit more close to what you have said, in which there would not be any synthesizing. And there are other possibilities, like giving as a source a different site or the book itself, from which it is taken. I say is sad because I didn't see much good faith, except for you looking for the articles connecting Unabomber and Fight Club, which I truly appreciate it.

What I meant to say was that there is an overall unwillingness to reflect the obvious luddite interpretations found about this movie on mainstream society. When I talk about rules being manipulated, I am not necessarily speaking of you in particular. And the fact that, according to you, only what gets published in "TIMES magazine" should count as reliable source is relevant to the discussion concerning how an encyclopedic article about a movie can reflect in all its spectrum how the public has seen the movie. So, I don't believe I have changed subject.

As for the issue of the book, just so that I may protect my reputation, I must say I have the book in my hand, it has got an editor and a distribution publisher, and you can easily find any of his books, for example on amazon. Just type "John Zerzan" and you will see his books right up-front. The reason why non-anarchist press decision makers are not talking about the destruction of civilization is beyond me.Maziotis 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not have a major issue with John Zerzan presenting commentary on the film. However, that particular citation is not the most appropriate per reliable source guidelines.  If that particular piece was published in one of his books, then you could use the Cite book template to reference that information.  It's just that from that particular online source, Zerzan's authority is not substantiated by any verifiability standards that I've mentioned.  Does Zerzan mention Fight Club in your book? In addition, for citations about the so-called destruction of civilization, I don't think that the emphasis is about that.  I've shown you numerous quotations that clearly indicate that the nihilistic path is not the path that the film is suggesting, just one of its characters' suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is original research. Finally, you assume one of the critiques interpretations. If you want my opinion, that review does not suggest that the movie is not "nihilistic", as you call it. The analogy of the individual who is breaking free, represented trough the rebellion against the very foundations of society, is not mutually exclusive with the perspective in which the author takes the opportunity to make criticism with the actual culture from which the individual is born. In fact, one that adopts this second point of view could not go by without adopting the first.

Regarding Zerzan's book, the mention of Fight Club is the same as in the article. The article is one of the chapters in this book. If you go to amazon and follow the option "search inside", you will see the title of the article in the index. The book is called "Running on Emptiness".Maziotis 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I only shared my input based on what I'm finding in my overhaul project in regards to the films' themes. I think while we're not on the same page, we're probably in the same chapter.  I just don't see anarcho-primitivism as being the main theme of the film.  Elements of it drive the plot to present Tyler's dialectic, certainly, for the protagonist to respond to.


 * Now, if you have a published source that's the same as the online citation, then copy and paste this:, and go to the article's Reception section and type something similar to that sentence I mentioned a few discussions ago. Paste the coding after your sentence and fill in the page number and the accessdate.  Remember not to synthesize information not found in the source, as another editor advised you. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've done it for you. Just put in the page number and change the sentence as you see fit while adhering to NPOV. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Maziotis 08:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)