Talk:Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image copyright problem with Image:N Fury.jpg[edit]

The image Image:N Fury.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion[edit]

The plot in this article is way too short and should be expanded in more detail. Also the production and reception also need to be expanded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Wheelchair-bound"[edit]

I don't want to revert this again without discussing it first but the implication isn't that the person being described is the only one who might take offense at this. It's still outdated and ablest terminology even if it describes a fictional character—would be okay with described a fictional character as "coloured" or as "a Saracen" in Wikipedia's voice just because a source had used it too? We gain nothing from keeping the term, it has no upsides or conveys no additional information, but by losing it we stop showing wheelchair-using readers that we think less of them. There's no issue of accuracy here, only of accessibility. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "wheelchair-bound" is descriptive, and is not dated. There are newspaper headlines using it even within the past week, e.g., "Wheelchair-bound climate change activists are passing out in front of the White House in hunger strike" The Hill (Oct. 28, 2021); Woman charged in death of wheelchair-bound man found dead in burning Saginaw County home, Michigan Live (Oct. 27, 2021); Man hands himself over to police after allegedly raping wheelchair-bound woman, News24 (Oct. 29, 2021). BD2412 T 15:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not refuting that it doesn't still see use, just that we don't need to blindly parrot it back. Outdated does not mean "no longer in use", just no longer best practice. Other than finding extant uses of a phrase that people from that community object to, is there a construction reason for retaining it? If we gain no material good from keeping it, no additional information, no net positive, why would we upset a demographic of readers for reasons that boil down to nothing more than monkey see, monkey do? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally what "dated" means. This should be a topic of an RfC for community input. As it stands, there is no broadly applied consensus to avoid use of the accurate and descriptive phrase "wheelchair-bound" across Wikipedia. BD2412 T 15:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated can simply mean old-fashioned, not extinct. Many old-fashioned views and phrases still see regular usage. We wouldn't describe anyone, fictional or real, as a "papist" rather than Catholic, and I can see that in print daily if I care to look. Again I ask, what is the positive gain from using a phrase seen as offensive by the people it ostensibly describes? You don't seem to be offering a reason to keep it other than inertia, if you have a constructive reason to prefer it I will gladly hear it but "I don't want to change it" is not enough. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have asked for additional input at WT:MOS and WT:FILM as I don't know how much traffic this page will get on its own. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To wit, WP cannot be progressive about language use. It has to be shown, and agreed by consensus, that "wheelchair-bound" is no longer acceptable language in various mainstream MOS or the like to deprecate that wording. --Masem (t) 16:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The UK government style guide is one example where both "wheelchair bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" are deprecated in favour of "user"-based language, likewise the NDA, Ireland's statutory body on disability says likewise. Disability organisations such as Greater Manchester Coalition and New Mobility as well as articles by the Guardian expressly make the preference clear. This isn't a case of radical progressivism; this is a case where style guides say one thing and vernacular usage hasn't caught up—one only need to run any article through FAC to see that "common usage" is not always best usage when it comes to prose, after all. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further: American Psychological Association, Americans with Disabilities Act National Network, National Health Service, Stanford University, Associated Press Stylebook. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested attributive "wheelchair-using" seems like fringe usage at best based on current usage patterns. "Wheelchair-bound" appears to be strongly dominant in mainstream English. Doremo (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous style guides out there explaining why 'wheelchair-bound' is no longer preferred. Off the top of my head here's a guideline here in WP MOS:DISAB and here's one from the UK government "[1]" Persicifolia (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doremo, that's actually probably not a good comparison. Wheelchair-bound is an idiomatic term. Wheelchair-using is a construction; the idiomatic phrases would be uses a wheelchair or wheelchair user: like this —valereee (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Wheelchair-bound Zola" and "wheelchair-using Zola" are the relevant phrasings used in the article edits. This does not exclude the fact that other phrasings are possible. Doremo (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant to whether "wheelchair-bound" is the current usage. In fact wheelchair-bound is less widely used than "uses a wheelchair" plus "wheelchair user". "Wheelchair-using Zola" is a silly construction caused by someone deciding to swap out the terms instead of recasting the sentence.
For instance, we could recast this:
Fury learns that Zola is still alive and being kept in a S.H.I.E.L.D. safehouse in Berlin, Fury and De Fontaine travel there. They rendezvous with local Interpol agent Gail Runciter, and proceed to the safehouse, where an elderly, wheelchair-bound Zola overpowers Kate Neville's telepathy with his evil visions.
as this:
Fury learns that Zola, in this version of the character an elderly wheelchair user, is still alive and being kept in a S.H.I.E.L.D. safehouse in Berlin. Fury and De Fontaine rendezvous with local Interpol agent Gail Runciter and proceed to the safehouse, where Zola overpowers Kate Neville's telepathy with his evil visions. —valereee (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone mentioned that wheelchair-bound and wheelchair-using have different meanings? If I'm wheelchair-bound, I can't move myself around without the chair. If I'm wheelchair-using, we don't know whether I actually need the chair to move or not. For this reason I think we should use the terminology used in the source, on a case-by-case basis. MarshallKe (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on usage provided above do not make that distinction and I'm not sure how reliable it is. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, cross-referencing The Hill with the original source it's citing, People, it looks like The Hill is either mistaken or editorializing by using "wheelchair-bound", as People is using "sitting in wheelchairs" wording. MarshallKe (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MarshallKe - it's me who made the original disputed edit. Just to add yes - there sometimes is a need to clarify whether we're talking about somebody who cannot walk at all or someone who uses a wheelchair occasionally. Either 'a full-time wheelchair user' or to be more specific 'cannot walk at all' for the former, and 'ambulatory wheelchair user', 'occasional wheelchair user' or 'sometimes uses a wheelchair' for the latter. (Part of the issue and the need for the change is that actually the majority of wheelchair users are ambulatory wheelchair users, but that's a whole other discussion I think!) Persicifolia (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether The Hill is editorializing or not is irrelevant. They are a major media outlet. Their usage is informative of what constitutes normal English usage. BD2412 T 17:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about if you are on a long journey, heading for a wheelchair? MapReader (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that took me a while, but - to the tune of the Simon and Garfunkel song? That's legitimately the first joke about the term 'wheelchair bound' I've actually found funny. I didn't think that was possible MapReader. Persicifolia (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to spoil the joke by analyzing it, but the adjective "bound," with the meaning of "going," "about to embark," etc, and modified by an adverb of direction (e.g. homeward) generally doesn't take a hyphen, which "wheelchair-bound" does. (This is the English language though and there are always exceptions to every prescription. So, we do say, "northbound." But "north" is an adverbial noun (with the meaning of northward), which "wheelchair" is generally not.) If you were a wheelchair repairman, had arrived at a mansion and let yourself in, and had been stopped by the butler with the query, "May I know your business, sir?" You could reply, "I'm wheelchair bound." But without the hyphen. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should be relieved that you weren’t actually trying to spoil it. ;) MapReader (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wheelchair-bound" is an ableist term. The sentence in question is: "They rendezvous with local Interpol agent Gail Runciter, and proceed to the safehouse, where an elderly, wheelchair-bound Zola overpowers Kate Neville's telepathy with his evil visions." "wheelchair-bound" has been changed to "wheelchair-using." If you don't like "wheelchair-using," you can easily change the sentence to, "They rendezvous with local Interpol agent Gail Runciter, and proceed to the safehouse, where an elderly Zola, a wheelchair user, overpowers Kate Neville's telepathy with his evil visions," (i.e. with an appositive).
Others have likely already found the usage in the various guides, but this is also a matter of precision in meaning. When very active humans such as Stephen Hawking (who once nearly collided into me in a supermarket (Sainsbury's) in Cambridge, England, so fast was he navigating his wheelchair, and he was intellectually active besides) have used a wheelchair, "wheelchair-bound" is not just an ableist term, it is imprecise. You could say a wheelchair in many instances is no more confining than bipedalism is to Usain Bolt. And once a term becomes anachronistic, it can't be applied to the past (when it was current) or to instances in the present which fit the literal meaning. We can't very well say, "X was a negro preacher who advised Abraham Lincoln in spiritual matters." We can't also say, "the late Dick Hoyt and his wheelchair-bound son Rick completed the Boston marathon ..." just because Rick was a quadriplegic with cerebral palsy; this is because such characterization is offensive to a minority for whom these distinctions don't have any meaning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we were talking about Hawking, or any real person, this would not be an issue. As applied to a fictional Nazi psychic supervillain, it is overcorrection on the scale of changing Blind Willie McTell to "Visually Impaired Willie McTell" or Captain Hook to "Captain Differently-Abled". Wikipedia is chock full of information that is offensive to billions, whether it is in the way we characterize political questions like the status of Tibet or Taiwan in relation to China, or the way we characterize religious doctrines, or whether we describe personal scandals of celebrities. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, not through our content, and not through our style guide. BD2412 T 17:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One, it doesn't matter who it's applied to, but to our readers; we aren't offending a character, we're offending the reader who reads the term. Secondly, strawman alternatives like "Captain Differently-Abled" are simply nonsense. We aren't here to right great wrongs, but we are here to follow commonly-used style guides to avoid causing ill will to our readers who, you might remember, are who the project is intended for. That essay is often the last bastion of those who wish to cling to something harmful but can offer no actual defence of it--please articulate one single argument in favour of using the offensive version if you can. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Blind Willie McTell was his name, part of a long tradition in jazz and blues of calling people by their physical attributes (Blind Lemon Jefferson, Fats Waller, Little Walter, Big Walter Horton, Magic Slim, ...) now thankfully abandoned. We can't very well change a person's name. But we can say, "Blind Willie McTell was born in ----. He was visually impaired at birth, the impairment becoming total in early ..." or the like. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to stop using wheelchair-bound in favor of uses a wheelchair. If the person doesn't use a wheelchair for mobility 100% of the time, we can clarify that they 'use crutches or a wheelchair to get around' or whatever, but wheelchair-bound is outdated and ableist language and we shouldn't be using it at all. And as has been pointed out, no one is actually 100% "wheelchair bound". People get out of their wheelchairs to bathe, sleep, use a standing frame. —valereee (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that's easy. 100% of the depictions of this fictional character in this medium are of the character in a wheelchair. There are no sources suggesting that this portrayal of the fictional Nazi psychic supervillain Arnim Zola got out of his wheelchair to eat or sleep, or used a standing frame. "Wheelchair-bound" is an intrinsic element of the character's fictional identity. This is different, of course, from the MCU version of Arnim Zola, who uploads his consciousness to a computer, and therefore might be described as "computer-bound" (and not so much as a "computer user"). BD2412 T 21:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget George Carlin's warnings about soft language. Changing the name of the condition, doesn't change the condition. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... It might not change the physical condition, but it sure as hell changes the mental condition. Where did Carlin get his MD? In psychiatry? especially the one in psychiatry? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC) (That didn't come out right. Correcting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Carlin seems to be objecting to the evolution of "shell shock" into "post-traumatic stress disorder". Apparently the ICU nurses during COVID should be diagnosed with "shell shock." Because, you know, science doesn't actually develop and change as we learn new things. If we called it shell-shock in 1918, by golly we should be calling it shell-shock in 2021. —valereee (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What ever terminology is decided on. It likely will 'also' have to be decided if it should be treated differently or not, when it involves a fictional character or a real person. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see absolutely no reason why that should be the case. The concern here is for the reader. Ask yourself if the average reader is less likely to find, say, an outdated racial term less offensive if it was applied to a fictional character--they'd be very unlikely to care about the supposed distinction. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 03:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The depiction of the character matters. There are certainly fictional characters whose use of a wheelchair is portrayed with some nuance - Professor X, Barbara Gordon as Oracle. I am not even arguing that all fictional characters should be treated the same. The use of the phrase relevant in this case is the use in this article, succinctly describing this fictional character, as portrayed in this media. BD2412 T 06:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This fundamentally misunderstands the problem. It has nothing to do with whether the term is used to describe a real person or a fictional character. It would not be okay to refer to fictional LGBT character using offensive terminology, it would not be okay to refer to a fictional character with outdated racial terminology, and when multiple style guides explain that "wheelchair-bound" is similarly outmoded, why are we pretending that it's just a matter of "oh, well, it's fiction". I'm sorry, but readers and editors are not fictional and shouldn't have to put up with this. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grapple X. We paraphrase not for a fictional character's milieu or time, but for ours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What fails here is that wheelchair-bound is not an outdated term, it's a term that progressives want to be an outdated term in the future, but unfortunately, it isn't, as evidenced by its continued use in current mainstream sources. The term has no replacements that don't also change its meaning. MarshallKe (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple journalistic, academic, and governmental guides were listed above showing that it is indeed outdated; no proposed alternatives here have a different meaning. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources exist that continue to use the term, contradicting that. An infinite number of style guides can't overcome a handful of instances of actual usage. BD2412 T 17:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply nonsense. There are countless "instances of actual usage" that are entirely counter to our manual of style; contractions, "should of", fused participles, etc. The reason style guides exist in the first place is to provide guidance on what should be used and what should be disregarded or deprecated, or else lay convention would dictate everything and we'd still be talking about octaroons and jewesses. I cannot fathom why you would be so resistant to following reliable, widely-used sources on this in favour of something you read in a headline ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is trivially easy to find style guides that do things differently than our own style. Our manual of style governs our internal usage and no one else's, just as every external style guide governs the internal usage of the entity to which it is directed. What I am "resisting to" here is a pretentious effort to impose wording in a tenor that is out of place to the subject being discussed. Just looking at the first sentence of the article - "Agents of the terrorist organization HYDRA invade a S.H.I.E.L.D. facility, killing Clay Quartermain and reviving a cryogenically preserved Baron Wolfgang Von Strucker" - I'm sure you can find people somewhere in the world who are offended by the use of words like "terrorist", "invade", "killing", and "cryogenically preserved", and would be placated if the sentence read "Agents of the Geneva Convention-non-conforming organization HYDRA enter without consent a S.H.I.E.L.D. facility, removing from life Clay Quartermain and reviving a longevity-abled via temperature reduction Baron Wolfgang Von Strucker". BD2412 T 19:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find me where national governments, mainstream journalism, or the most commonly-used style guide in modern english agree with these strawman distractions then perhaps they might be relevant, otherwise they're nothing more than a clear sign you cannot defend the position you hold on its own merits. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a style guide directed towards writing about fictional characters rather than real-world journalistic topics. BD2412 T 20:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's a fictional character or not has no bearing, as already explained. Would you also agree with, for example, an article calling a fictional Asian character an anti-Asian slur? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean something like Fu Manchu? Or Fu Manchu (Marvel Comics)? Or Fu Manchu moustache? BD2412 T 20:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly—would you be so eager to defend an edit to Fu Manchu (Marvel Comics) which used common terms against Asians, just because he's a fictional character? Because those kinds of terms too can be found in common usage, and clearly fictional characters seem to be your exception to style guides, proper writing, or basic decency. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Fu Manchu" is an ethnic slur, one we wouldn't use in discussing a real person, but use in identifying this fictional character. I notice that none of the people discussing the phrase, "wheelchair-bound", whether for or against, hesitate to use the phrase in this discussion, the way they might hesitate to use an actual slur. There is no clever piping to conceal the phrase as offensive. BD2412 T 20:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, I didn't do that because I thought people who were against this would make fun of me for being slowflakey. Same for the word r*****. I use it, I get criticized for being willing to use it in such discussion. I asterisk it out, I get criticized for being too politically correct. You can't win. Also, it used to be okay to use the N-word in discussions like this; it no longer is. Things change. —valereee (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being "wheelchair bound" should be used, until/unless another terminology is agreed upon. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Summoned from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style) It's not necessarily a one-size-fits-all question. "Wheelchair user" is probably fine for many impersonal situations ("The building was inaccessible to wheelchair users" is maybe better than "The building was inaccessible to the wheelchair-bound") or in anodyne descriptive passages ("Smith was the first wheelchair user to be admitted to the Academy") and so on.
Here, we're talking about literature. Literature, being an art, gets a bit more leeway I think. If the author of the work has made the character's disability an important part of her persona or of the action, I don't think its our place to water that down on purpose. Zola is bound, immobilized, and that's a key to the drama (I guess). It's not a service to the reader to use terms which make this less clear.
It's fine to describe the protagonist of a spy drama as being a "desk-bound analyst" before becoming a swashbuckling field agent. In another context, we'd presumably say "Smith was an office worker before becoming a performer with the Solid Gold Dancers" rather than "desk-bound". It's just different. Herostratus (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A RfC about the usage of "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC on wheelchair-based language. GreenComputer (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Fury:_Agent_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._(film)&oldid=1209367591"