Talk:Kill Your Darlings (2013 film)

Philolexian Society
"The film fails to depict the membership of Ginsberg and Carr in Columbia University's Philolexian Society." This has been repeatedly added by an IP editor citing the screenplay. Per WP:BRD, when you boldly add something and it is reverted, please discuss the issue. Merely restoring your edit does not address the dispute: You feel it should be included. Another editor does not. Maybe you are right. Maybe you are wrong. Maybe it's somewhere in the middle. The IP editor believes the material is properly sourced. It is entirely possible that the Society is not mentioned in the screenplay and that Ginsberg and Carr were members. It is also possible that the material is irrelevant. The film skips lots of material, some of it trivial (what did the two have for lunch that day?), some of it more substantial. That's part of film making. Is it relevant that the two were in the Society? Maybe, maybe not. We do not get to decide. At rock bottom, Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject. If you can find an independent reliable source discussing this issue, we might have something to discuss. Otherwise, the addition is your original research included because you feel it is relevant. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Carr and Kammerer
I have twice attempted to add information from a source cited in Lucien Carr's Wikipedia article, and twice a user has taken it upon himself to revert the edit. The following is the second version (as that user bade me do, considerably edited down from the version in Carr's own article, with which oddly the user appears to take no issue): 'The Guardian obituary (Eric Homberger, February 8, 2005) of Lucien Carr observed that the truth of the relationship between Carr and Kammerer was difficult to ascertain; Carr's presentation of himself as a heterosexual victim of the homosexual Kammerer's obsessive stalking meant Carr "became a victim and the murder was framed as an honor killing", noting "there was no one in court to question the story or offer a different version of the relationship". Given no other proof of Kammerer's homosexuality (indeed, "there is persuasive evidence that Kammerer was not gay"), and Carr himself being the only source for the alleged pursuit from St Louis to New York, in addition to the fact that Carr enjoyed manipulating the older man into writing essays for his university classes, the "insinuation, legal spin and lies" involved in Carr's presentation of the situation led to the conclusion that "much of the story... is doubtful."'[the citation, the Guardian obituary, goes here] GorgeCustersSabre removed this the second time with "You could try a second time to paraphrase more and to place at least another citation", the necessity of which I fail to apprehend and spending the time on which I have not at present the luxury (collating the sources used by the Guardian obituarist would no doubt be a not inconsiderable effort); this is posted here for reference as I considered it useful contextual information previously lacking from this article, also in the event that anyone else should care to meet GorgeCustersSabre's demands on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.77.254 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I am the editor you describe thus: "twice a user has taken it upon himself to revert the edit". Sorry, but I have the right to edit you. I have not exceeded my responsibility to try to keep this page accurate and well referenced. You cut and paste directly from an obituary. When I pointed this out, you merely rearranged the wording a little. My advice remains the same: paraphrase it properly. All good wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course you are; I referred to you directly by name twice. Your rights are not in dispute; your responsibilities are (within limits) yours to determine- your advice, however, is not of any use, given that it was followed once and still the result failed to meet with your approbation. The article can simply remain as it is- I'm not willing to spend any further effort meeting standards set from one user's whims. As I previously told you, the information came from the Lucien Carr article- if you have a problem with it, go there and sort it out; it'd be a profitable use of your time at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.77.254 (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. If you insert other people’s words and don’t paraphrase them adequately they will be reverted. Thanks and take care. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. I already know your personal policy in this regard; the point to which I take exception is your extrapolation of your personal policy as though it's universally representative of other users of Wikipedia. In closing: as I've told you several times by now, the Lucien Carr article presents exactly the same information as I sought to include here to improve this article- if you have such a problem with it, go there and deal with it instead of dilly-dallying. You ought to take care too- you may well make a bad name for yourself if you continue with this blandly draconian attitude! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.77.254 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)