Talk:Killers of the Flower Moon (film)/Archive 1

Untitled
This page has some more information: Killers of the Flower Moon (film) It is going to be deleted. HAL 333  21:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"Killers of the Flower Moon (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killers_of_the_Flower_Moon_(upcoming_film)&redirect=no Killers of the Flower Moon (upcoming film)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Does this article still need more citations?
The article as it stands today currently have 32 3rd-party citations, most if not all of them being valid, objective and verifiable.

Does this article still need that big "More Citation Needed" banner at the top?

If it still does, then color me confused. Me though, I say it doesn't need it anymore.

--Ferdi Zebua (username: Lemi4) (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not a "more citations needed" tag. It is a "more full citations needed" tag. There are several WP:BARELINKS in this article as well as citations missing the following parameters: titles, publication, author, and date. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Plot Summary
The current plot summary posted is not a good representation of the film. It completely misses important plot details (especially in the first and third acts), and minor details about certain scenes or plot developments are inaccurate. Unless someone wants to write a better plot summary, the current one should be deleted, NOT because of spoilers, but because it poorly represents the actual plot of the film. Edit: The important part of discussion should be focused on verifiability rather than accuracy for now, as currently any plot summary is unverifiable since the film has not been released. See further comments. Cleantext (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not seen the film, so I can't weigh in on its level of accuracy, but wouldn't removing the inaccuracies be better than removing the section entirely? Remember that there is no deadline.--MattMauler (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, you would have to remove or rewrite it all almost entirely. Almost all of it is, at best, misleading or poorly phrased. Its descriptions of Hale's and Ernest's motives, actions, and views of the Osage, as well as how the Osage view Hale early on, range from subjectively misleading (up to interpretation) to flat out wrong. It contains almost no actual plot points and completely omits arguably the most important one (Ernest is the one poisoning Mollie). Pretty much all the scenes described are also inaccurate. For example, the summary fails to note the film opens on an Osage ritual; it's not just "some Osage Indians" walking through the fields. The next sentence says they join together and celebrate, but this isn't really how it's depicted in the film. The description of the coda: "the film shifts to a radio-style news announcement" isn't quite accurate. Also, "The film returns to visualize some images of indigenous peoples performing various inherited rituals" is inaccurate. The film ends on a specific Osage ritual. Honestly, the way it is written feels like whoever wrote it hasn't actually seen the film. The plot summary contains almost none of the actual plot points in the film, and basically offers a poor description of Ernest and Hale's characters. Again, unless someone wishes to write a summary that is more representative of the film, it should be removed for now. Edit: This is largely not relevant to the core issue of verifiability for now. See other comments. Cleantext (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My agreement is with MattMauler above and with Lanced Soul and Taking Out The Trash on the main page. If you were part of the production staff for this film then it might be useful for you to identify this information. At present your comments appear to be quibbles like your saying "peoples performing various inherited rituals" is wrong but that your stating its "a specific Osage ritual" is correct, which sounds like an easy edit to update if you think you are right. MattMauler's comment above is correct when he states that you can add your edits into the article when needed, rather than your section blanking against three editors who have tried to preserve the added plot section. If you are some part of the production staff for this film, then you should state this. The plot section is restored in agreement with MattMauler, Lanced Soul and Taking Out The Trash. Establish agreement on this discussion page prior to continuing do your section blacking against three editors. HenryRoan (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The "quibbles" are more about pointing out that the few scenes you do describe (the opening and the ending) are inaccurate. The larger problem is you haven't actually described any of the core plot of the film! Have you actually seen the film? Edit: See other comments Cleantext (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you tried improving the plot?  Mike  Allen   09:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is difficult to do as there are not enough reliable sources to cite a fully accurate summary as the film is NOT currently publicly available. Even if the plot summary were accurate (which it's not), it is completely unsourced, which should be necessary for a film that is currently not available to the general public, as it's impossible for other users or editors to verify its accuracy.
 * See MOS:FILMPLOT for upcoming films.
 * As it stands, it is unsourced speculation/misinformation. Can someone explain why it shouldn't be removed? Cleantext (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I was not aware of the guideline concerning upcoming films specifically, and I just assumed it didn't need sources, but you're right, it's pretty clear. From MOS:FILMPLOT: Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary [...] Secondary sources must be used for all other cases, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and lost films, as these would not be considered generally available or verifiable. (emphasis mine)--MattMauler (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But you've seen it, right? From the way you are writing, you know the story completely.  Then rewrite the summary and stop blanking it.  You literally registered to to edit this page and somehow know about all the guidelines.  So you seem experienced here, so WP:FIXIT.  Mike   Allen   14:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Honest question here: What is the proper precedent or template for films currently not available to the general public?
 * MOS:FILMPLOT states that upcoming films require secondary sources. It is not really possible to write a full summary since those sources don't exist as the film hasn't had a wide public release yet.
 * Looking at examples from other pages of upcoming films, most have at most a basic premise outlined in place of a plot summary.
 * Is this not appropriate currently for this page? Isn't less information, but properly sourced, better than unverifiable misinformation? Cleantext (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't answer my questions?  Mike  Allen   15:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, which question? The attempt to improve the section was to use a basic premise from an official source. Even if someone has seen the film, a plot summary without sources would be inappropriate here as there is no way for anyone else to verify it. Cleantext (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My mindset was WP:FIXIT initially, but that's because I was unaware of the specific policy on unreleased films, even those that have been viewed at festivals like Cannes. While I would hesitate to call the current plot summary "misinformation," vague though it may be, doesn't it seem like the accuracy is no longer the central issue and that we should remove the plot summary in order to adhere to the clear policy?--MattMauler (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Critical Response section is stating a fairly broad viewing of the film when it states: "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, Killers of the Flower Moon holds an approval rating of 97% based on 66 reviews." HenryRoan (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, it seems it would have been better to focus this discussion on verifiability from the start. In the interest of clarification just so everyone is on the same page:
 * The current information in the plot summary on the page is unverifiable and is for a film that has not been released yet. MOS:FILMPLOT pretty clearly states that secondary sources are required for upcoming films. It also seems clear from WP:BURDEN unverifiable information should not be restored. Due to the film being unreleased to the general public, and a lack of secondary sources, a verifiable complete plot summary is likely currently impossible.
 * It seems appropriate to remove or replace the section with a premise from a reliable source for now. Can anyone who opposes this please state their reasoning for doing so? Cleantext (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Plot section
Are we absolutely sure we should keep the plot section? Spoilers aren't a problem but the whole section just seems so badly written and disorganized, and also contradicts several plot details I've heard from other people. If it's not deleted then it 100% should be rewritten, but the article definitely cannot be kept the way it is now. 85.186.62.79 (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced plot section and MOS:FILMPLOT
Chiming in as an uninvolved editor -- it looks like there was a reverted edit turning the unsourced plot summary into a more concise, sourced version. Starting a discussion thread here and pinging Douglas Firs and HenryRoan. --Yaksar (let's chat) 17:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the same thing that happened with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, where a plot summary was added after it premiered in Cannes but before it was widely released and it turned out to be fake. We should just remove it until it can be actually verified by watching the film itself in theaters, as it's the case with all other film plot summaries. —El Millo (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's precisely my worry with this summary (beyond that the style guideline in question disallows the summary and that the summary in question is quite badly written). I can think of many compelling reasons to delete the summary, and none at all to retain it. Douglas Firs (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Upon further examination, I must also admit a certain amount of confusion towards HenryRoan's motivations for editing the page to include the summary. The summary is the user's first and by far most substantial edit (having joined Wikipedia on the same day as they posted the summary), the user's name is the same name as a major character in the film in question (and the real-life events upon which it was based), and, most bizarrely, in reverting my earlier deletion of the plot summary, the user said that Mike Allen had written it, when, in fact, it was first added to the page by HenryRoan. I don't understand how HenryRoan could have forgotten that they, themselves, had written the plot summary. Douglas Firs (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The plot summary was significantly modified and updated by Mike Allen. Sending notifies to the other editors involved MattMauler, Lanced Soul, Taking Out The Trash. The last talk page comment was that the film has already received over sixty (60) reviews in the general press for reading in major new sources like the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, etc. The Critical Response section is stating a fairly broad viewing of the film when it states: "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, Killers of the Flower Moon holds an approval rating of 97% based on 66 reviews." HenryRoan (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First, the edit history only shows minor modifications of the plot summary by Mike Allen. That user deleted about a half-paragraph from your original summary, but I'm going to guess 80-90% of the text in question is identical to what you first posted in mid-July. We are absolutely talking about your contribution here, and I remain confused as to why you credited it in your edit summary to Mike Allen.
 * But, and more importantly, it doesn't matter whose plot summary it is or how many major news sources have reported on the plot of the film when MOS:FILMPLOT quite unambiguously states that upcoming films should not receive plot summaries unless one can be provided through the citation of secondary sources. At no point have you used secondary sources to explain your description of the movie in the plot summary; in other words, your contributions are in violation of that guideline. The reason why you haven't done so seems to me quite simple: I don't think you'd at all be able to write a plot summary, and I don't think it would be useful to have such a plot summary on the article, by piecing the film's events together from disparate reviews and press coverage. (It is telling to me that, when another editor asked you if you had seen this film before writing a plot summary for it, you did not answer). I must also stress that the summary is poorly written, for reasons that I think other users have done a good job of explaining in previous discussion on this topic. Why should this article retain a section that is both low-quality and in clear violation of a style guideline? Douglas Firs (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances (movie not yet widely released so there's no way to verify the plot, high profile movie, subject matter is highly sensitive), I say nix the entire plot summary section for now and restore the Premise section that existed before HenryRoan added the plot summary, adding any (minimal, broad stroke, concise) details as necessary sourced to secondary sources. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with TenTonParasol. Douglas Firs (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, it should be removed until the film is widely released. —El Millo (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed with above about removing it entirely. Also I don’t remember adding anything to the plot.  I do remember removing POV type of wording.  Mike   Allen   21:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be removed per the clear policy. I expressed this in my last two comments in the above section ("Plot summary"), and I would have removed it back then, but at that the time it felt like there was a mini edit war, so I let it go.--MattMauler (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the plot summary and restored the premise. Policy is clear and there seems to be consensus already. —El Millo (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * MOS does not make distinctions of premiere date, limited opening date, and general opening date for the writing of Plots. If reviewers are writing reviews with spoilers in the press for this film then they can be used in the plot section. Here is one of the over fifty reviews already published for this film: . HenryRoan (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No one said that it does, but the scattershot nature of what the reviews describe (and the requirement to cite every claim made in the plot section) would make the creation of a useful plot summary extremely difficult, and the formatting required atrocious. It comes out in a month and a half anyway - why not just wait until then? Douglas Firs (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Plot
Where’s the plot? 132.194.13.184 (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)