Talk:Pulp Fiction/Archive 3

minor cleanup
Just doing some minor cleanup.... could use more.... maybe needs a tag?Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This article should be under simply Pulp Fiction, not under the name Pulp Fiction (film). The only other article even close is the soundtrack.  This article should be moved to Pulp Fiction along with the talk page with a link to the soundtrack.  You don't say Ronald Regan (Predident) unless there is two or a confusing situation.  You just say Ronald Regan, and the same rationale is justified here.  I will attempt to move it now. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 04:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

you would if ronald regan was a common noun before he became president.

also, at the bottom it reads "as is Tarantino's wont as well as his stated aim."[160]". shouldnt that be "want" not "wont" 24.144.44.138 (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Which format
Please refer to this diff. I've protected the page after a 3RR report:. User:DCGeist indicates that this has been discussed previously (so please excuse me if it has): which is the format that should be chosen? -- Samir 10:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You need not excuse, Samir, as it would have been DCGeist's job to point out that supposed discussion is, if it exists at all.
 * DCGeist's format is unacceptable. If a plot section has different subsections, every possible content chapter should be subsection. And if some have headers, everyone should have a header.
 * It is especially strange to insert headers like " - - - -" and to rip apart passages that are linked content-wise, e.g. the "Prelude to Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace's Wife" from "Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace's Wife" or the "Prelude to the Gold Watch" from "The Gold Watch". If we can't have separate prelude subsections (and I don't know why, given that the preceding section gave exactly that outline), we should place the preludes within the subsections following them.
 * Finally, "what's on screen" is hardly a reasonable argument. The plot section is supposed to summarize the plot, not copy "what's on screen".
 * Str1977 (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First, if you would simply scroll up this very screen, you would find the discussion that led to the present formatting.


 * Second, you wish to introduce into a plot summary new subsection headings of your own devising and give them equal weight to the titles that actually appear both onscreen and in the screenplay. "Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace's Wife", for instance, appears in both. "Prelude to 'Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace's Wife'" appears in neither. While it is appropriate to use that phrase in analyzing the film (as in the preceding Overview section of the article), it is inappropriate to treat it as "official", as your ad hoc reformatting would do.


 * Likewise, it would be inaccurate (inaccuracy is bad, by the way, in an encyclopedia) to "place the preludes within the subsections following them," as you suggest. The plot material we are discussing as "preludes" in each case precede the formal titles and are separated from the following plot material not only by those titles but also by (a) the black screens on which those titles appear and (b) significant time jumps. The current format gives the most accurate presentation of the film's structure; that the format is somewhat different from the format we find in most other plot summaries is a necessary and accurate reflection of the fact that the plot structure being summarized is (radically) different from the sorts of structures we find in most other films. The current format is the best, most efficient, and most accurate way of addressing the present case.—DCGeist (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Reading the discussions from late last year shows just how much vigorous debate went into the format we now have, which has served the article very well. Both of the proposals for altering the format would make it substantially less precise, with minimal or no gain in clarity. There's simply no good reason to change the existing format.DocKino (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree. It appears that this issue was sufficiently discussed in the past, and Str1977 chose to edit war rather than seek a new consensus. It should stay as decided in the earlier consensus unless a new consensus develops. Cresix (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cresix, it takes two to edit war and it was and is clearly DCGeist who claims ownership of this article (and I gather from the above discussions that I am not the first to note that) and who indulged in personal attacks.
 * DC Geist did not bother to inform me until now (and he still doesn't name the section) that the discussion was here. He pointed me generally to the archive(s) and I found nothing there. Now, since he told me that it is on this page I looked again and can only state that the issue has not been discussed at all: there have been discussions about the size of the plot summary (indeed it is too long) and whether to use the == == format or other options. But that is not our issue here.
 * I did not wish to introduce subsections of any kind as I think plot summary do not need any subsections. I inserted headers to replace the subsections. My main objection is the use of subsections alongside of horizontal lines (in the case of those episodes without any title).
 * As for "what's on screen" - that is of no concern to our plot summary here. If we can speak of the prelude section in the analysis, we can also speak of them in the plot section. Are they separate episodes or not? If yes, they should be treated like the others. If not, they should be treated like any other part of an episode. Anyway, the episode breaks are only essential in one case as only the last episode, "The Bonnie Situation" falls out of chronology (leaving aside the short pre-title section).
 * Str1977 (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some unusual difficulty in locating the discussions that led to the current format, though I and apparently Cresix had no trouble finding them. They are Talk:Pulp_Fiction_(film) and Talk:Pulp_Fiction_(film).


 * M. '77, you don't do yourself any credit by arguing that "it takes two to edit war." The fact is you chose to alter a long-standing format and edit war on behalf of your change before engaging in a single word of discussion about it either in the past or at present. If you now feel compelled to address the edit war here, the appropriate thing to do would be to apologize for it.


 * You also don't seem to understand the most basic facts about the film relevant to this discussion. You state "only the last episode, 'The Bonnie Situation' falls out of chronology (leaving aside the short pre-title section)". If you wish to claim that "Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace's Wife" and "The Gold Watch" constitute the basic chronology, then following your own strange logic, the "only" episodes that fall out of chronology are "The Bonnie Situation", most of the prelude to "The Gold Watch" (that may be a flashback, but it begins unframed as you may recall), the short pre-title section, and the much longer epilogue, which is not part of "The Bonnie Situation". Even if your description was correct, it wouldn't obviate the need for identifying the episode breaks in the plot summary. It is the contorted, "Möbius strip" chronology of Pulp Fiction that necessitates the sort of format that was settled upon here.DocKino (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * DocKino,
 * there is difference in locating the previous discussion of this issue because it isn't there. There above sections address "bullets and " tags and * * *" but not about the problem here.
 * it indeed takes two to edit war. Despite some people having developed that view, "a long-standing format" is not a proper argument. My edit was so small that discussion didn't seem merited and DCGeist did nothing to dispell that view, instead resorting to personal attacks. If anyone, it is him who has apologizing to do.
 * You also should consider policies like AGF when you claim that I don't understand the basic facts. Indeed, leaving aside the pre-title sequence and the "Bonnie Situation" everything is in chronological order. Butch's childhood memory is indeed a flashback. That is begins "unframed" is nothing special - this happens in countless films. Only here, on this talk page, are some people quaking at the sight of title breaks.
 * Nothing you wrote actuall adressed the issue. As I said I don't mind indicating the episodes in some way. Only horizontal lines are not a proper way to do this. Str1977 (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, once again M. '77, you're just wrong. Blatantly wrong. The referenced discussions explicitly reference the "horizontal lines" that so distress you. Did you not notice that? Or did you prevaricate? Either way, once again, your claims are false.


 * You scream "My edit was so small"! Really? Do you expect us to take you seriously? If your edit was honestly "so small", you wouldn't care about it so very, very deeply. The truth is, it wasn't so small. It was a big edit, and a very bad one. It made the article worse. No one agrees with it. Live and learn. And do what you still have failed to do--apologize for edit warring before you ever cared to share your wisdom here with us on the discussion page.DocKino (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You should first of all reconsider the tone you set here if you want this to be a serious discussion and not a bashing of the one that dared to question the status quo. It is also impolite to address others by made up epithets. It don't call you D'No either.
 * And if the discussion has touced upon the horizontal lines - I have stated my arguments against these. It was not a bad edit, it made a section that right now is a mess a little better. But, as it seems, the powers that be decree that this article has to be a mess.
 * As for "you wouldn't care about it so very, very deeply" - how can you know how deeply I care about them? It's just a film after all. It is others that care about this article much more, going even so far as edit warring for wordings like "in the john".
 * As for "apologise"? For what? For trying to improve a messy section? For questioning the wisdom of the self-styled owners this article? For not breaking 3RR when others did? For not accepting personal attacks by certain people. You should apologize, most of all for hypocritically talking about "apologising". Str1977 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Str1977, with all due respect, please accept the fact that (for now, at least) the consensus is against your edits. It's nothing personal against you; it's simply the way the Wikipedia process works. You have fallen in the quagmire that so many editors slip into when faced with such opposition: Making the same points repeatedly but ignoring the consensus. If more support for your edits appears in this section in the future, then the article might change. But until then, making the same arguments over and over doesn't accomplish anything. Consensus is not determined by how loud you can shout or how many times you can state the same argument. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Innovations
The film introduced several innovative plot devices which are fundamental. I think it is important to mention them properly in the article (if they are original):


 * 1) Bathroom use: characters in earlier movies (or pre 20th century novels) never have to use the toilet. In Pulp Fiction, they not only go, when they go that's the event that drives a lot of the action. This is mentioned here, but it is interpreted as "scatology", which is a very patronizing description for a major new plot device. Before Pulp Fiction, people used to joke that "in the movies, people never have to reload their guns or go to the bathroom".
 * 2) Shoot and Miss (for no reason): The main event is a character shooting wildly and missing. In other movies, you only miss when there is a reason. Maybe the character dodged the bullet, or maybe you were distracted. Here there's absolutely no reason.
 * 3) Accidental shooting: With all the guns people tote in action movies, you would think some character somewhere would have gotten accidentally shot before. Nope. The only case when someone would be accidentally shot in a movie is when the gun is being handeled by a child, so that the shooting is somebody's fault.
 * 4) Evil bystanders: in movies, bystanders are not notable. Here, the author lets the characters wander into a pawn shop run by evil sadists.

Shoot and miss for no reason is disputed, not only by the characters, but by the film itself. Shortly after Vincent describes the offending weapon as a 'hand cannon', Jules steps aside, revealing bullet holes on the wall that could only have passed through his body. (Pulp Fiction approximately 1:49)-zaphodava 9:19pm 17 August 2009

The thing that that pulls these devices together is serendipity: mundane random events are ordered into a "divine arrangement" which is not apparent to the individual characters. This no-miracles type of religious filmmaking is probably the central innovation.Likebox (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also fake products: "Big Kahuna" burger, "Red Apple" cigarettes, "Jack Rabbit Slim's" diner. "Repo man" did blank labels, but this movie shows everybody how best to avoid product placement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.168.78 (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All of these are somewhat unusual plot devices, but I don't think a single one is original. If they were original, surely it would be easy to find authoritative sources that discuss their originality. I haven't come across such sources. If you have, please point us to them, and we can add a discussion of the matter to the Critical analysis section. (Note that the article already includes an extensive, well-sourced discussion of the bathroom motif and a sourced description of the fake products).—DCGeist (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Tough to say. That's why I put this here-- it's sort of a fact-finding mission. I saw the film again last night, and I was struck by these elements, since they are so notable. I really don't know if there are precedents for these, because I don't have a wide movie knowledge. I also don't know if they are written about, because I didn't read the criticisms. So I was hoping to start a small discussion. The bathroom business was sufficiently notable for people to write about, but it doesn't say that this film was first, instead it says that this is "scatology". I am pretty sure that this is wrong.


 * I was hoping someone would say something like: "No, no, bathrooms were used in Speed Devil 3, with Cheech and Chong," or "The Marx Brothers did accidental shooting in Penny for Your Thoughts in 1938!". That way it is possible to find out what is original and what is not.Likebox (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's some amateur film critic talk to explain why I think that this issue is important for this movie: you can't call this thing noir, because in the old noirs there's always some descent character, and maybe this character suppresses his or her ethics just so as to be able to maneuver among slimy people. So you don't find out Sam Spade's moral code until the end of the movie, but his code guides him to transcend all the pathetic amoral villainy. The good guy doesn't always get his way, but there's still a good guy. The ethics of the movie is embodied in some particular character.


 * But in this movie, all of them are scummy. None of them are any good. Not pure evil, except the pawn-shop people, I just mean that they do awful things as part of their job and chain of loyalties. But then you have these serendipitous events, none of which are particularly remarkable: somebody has to take a crap, the girl forgets the watch, the drug dealer is out of balloons, etc. But taken together, the serendipitous events conspire to enforce an ethical code which is far more exacting than the code of any of the characters. This is the central innovation of the storytelling, to my mind. The serendipity imposes an old-testament style ethical order onto a new-testament type corrupted world, and none of the characters are fully aware of this because they don't see the whole picture. Except for the Jules character at the very end, and that's the main event.


 * So the characters have to be so scummy, otherwise you couldn't show this. So that, out of nowhere, by a conspiracy of plausible chance events, forces that constrain ethical behavior appear. Each of them could be construed as a "miracle", but they are all so mundane, and none of them violate any of the laws of nature. The quality of goodness that these random events suggest stays an abstraction, it is not embodied in anybody onscreen.


 * Because I think that this is the whole point of the movie, I think if the discussion of the bathroom business stays focused on scatology, instead of serendipity, it would be a misrepresentation. I am sure I am not saying anything original--- there is a mountain of literature on this movie by now. I just think that the main point should be represented here somehow.Likebox (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that happens to be an excellent interpretation of the film, with one major caveat: the character of Butch. I don't think he fits so easily into your frame work of "scummy". Do we have reason to believe he makes a habit of "do[ing] awful things as part of [his] job and chain of loyalties"? Sure, he screws over Marsellus, but turnabout is fair play—ask a man to take a dive, and you can hardly whine about him violating ethical standards. Even leaving aside this question of fundamental character, Butch also makes an active choice to "impose" that "old-testament style ethical [I'd say 'moral'] order" you describe. It ain't serendipity that saves Marsellus and consigns those pawn-shop rapists to perdition, it's Butch with a samurai sword.


 * Now, we have to remember that this page is not a bulletin board for discussing the film, but a venue for discussing how to improve the Wikipedia article on the film. Some people may be uncomfortable about the angle of the bathroom discussion, but it's well-sourced and fairly represents the discussion in the critical literature, which is what we have to base our article on. The notion of a series of (mostly) serendipitous events beyond the characters' volition or even awareness conspiring to establish a traditional moral order is a strong one—but if it doesn't come up in the published literature, it has no place in the article. Note that there is some coverage of ideas that relate to this notion in different ways: see the views of White and Conard at the end of the Homage as essence/Cinema subsection and those of Gormley and Conard in the subsection on Jules's Bible passage.—DCGeist (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that that, of course, and unsourced comments like the ones I wrote above don't belong in the article. I put them on the talk page in order only to explain to other editors why I think this issue is important. When you have an innovative film, it doesn't seem right to me to write about the innovations as if they are pathologies.


 * My practical suggestion is to retitle the bathroom section to "unusual plot devices", and include the bathroom bit, the accidental shooting, the shoot-and-miss, and whatever else is new and unusual. Then you can say "some critics intepret the bathroom scenes as reflecting a scatological obsession". That's a minor viewpoint that is getting inflated all out of proportion in the current article.


 * But I can't rewrite it myself without input from other, more knowledgable, people, because I really don't know whether the "serendipitous" plot points are really new to this film, or if there is some obscure films out there that did it first. I think it is new to Pulp Fiction, but I really can't be sure without asking people who have seen more films and read more criticism.Likebox (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We can't write about the bathroom, accidental shooting, and shoot-and-miss as "unusual plot devices" without some sources describing them as such (or similarly). I understand that you are posting this info here to see if others can come up with some sources, but let's not put the cart before the horse. Wait for the sources (if there are any) before retitling, especially before adding sections on the accidental shooting and the shoot-and-miss as "unusual plot devices. The current section title ("Notable motifs") that contains the bathroom info is doesn't stray from the sources that are provided in the article. "Unusual plot devices" would do so with only the current sources. Ward3001 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. I made some minor edits to move the scatology to the end. I hope it isn't too much, especially since I don't think I changed the meaning.Likebox (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I had to revert it, because you added a significant claim without sourcing. If the focus on bathroom use really is a "notable departure from previous cinematic norms", then you should be able to find a source that supports that claim. If no such source can be found, then we have to conclude, for the purposes of the article, that any supposed departure isn't particularly notable.—DCGeist (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You could have just changed the offending sentence. I tried again, without the unsourced claim.Likebox (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I found this web page of "movie cliches" : In film, no one uses the restroom, except as a venue for escape. If there are multiple people in the restroom, expect a minor character revealation while they stand at the mirror. Not the best source, admittedly.Likebox (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The other sentence you wish to add I cut as well, because it is pure excess, redundant verbiage: "Critics have taken note of the frequent bathroom scenes, and some have come to the conclusion that the references are scatological." The fact is, we quote two critics who clearly find scatological symbolism in the bathroom motif. The extract of their views is sufficient to convey everything the proposed sentence conveys.—DCGeist (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I'm less than adamant about this. Sometimes an introductory, framing sentence like this can be helpful to the reader. I'm not sure it is in this case--let's try to get a third opinion. Ward?—DCGeist (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No big deal. The only point of that sentence was to draw a line that separates the facts of the bathroom business from the interpretations. Both the implicit scatological interpretation and the long-quote giving a strange machismo interpretation are weird academic viewpoints, which is not obvious the way it is written. On Wikipedia, everything is preceded by "such and so says". For stuff that isn't universally agreed upon, you should preface the comments with: "Some people believe ...", which serves the purpose of saying that not everybody believes. Then you say "For example, such and so says blah blah blah", and then no matter how much you say, it is clear that this is someone's opinion, not an uncontested interpretation.Likebox (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're getting at, but I think by this late point in the Critical analysis section we've well established that Pulp Fiction (a) attracts a wide variety of interpretations over which (b) there are many disagreements. And in this very passage, after quoting Fraiman's view, we say "Willis reads Pulp Fiction in almost precisely the opposite direction". So, in this context, the prefatory caveat strikes me as redundant. I can see there might be an issue with the length of the Fraiman quote, and thus the weight it's given. Pondering if there's a fair way to trim or summarize it... (The submachine gun reference is actually quite helpful to us for other reasons, as can be seen in the footnote).—DCGeist (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Splitting
Not opposed to splitting the article, but simply divorcing content from the main article is a bad idea. The sections need to stay, only in a more condensed and summarized form. Furthermore, I am opposed to doing this to the development and production sections in particular, since they are fundamental to the film itself - if anything, this would best be performed upon the critical interpretation section. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose split or condensing. The article is fine like it is. And I'll remind New Age Retro Hippie that the usual procedure on Wikipedia is to discuss and reach consensus before making such a drastic change, not after. We need a lot more, both in terms of rationale and amount of support by other editors, before there is a split. Ward3001 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Development and production are important, but the article is powerful enough on its own. A brief summary of the contents found in the development and production/critical analysis sections should suffice and allow for a split.
 * The article is large, unwieldy, etc. That really is not fine. 182 references, 110kb, the article is VERY long, and needs splitting.
 * WP:BOLD. Before talking down to me about policy, please explain to me how much it hurt you to make two reversions that took seconds to do.
 * Support. A development and production article can sustain itself quite well, and this article could easily become featured without the full summary. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"WP:BOLD. Before talking down to me about policy, please explain to me how much it hurt you to make two reversions that took seconds to do."
 * I hope you are disagreeing with my opposition to the split, not with the idea of consensus.
 * I did not "talk down" to you. I reminded you of a policy. If you can't handle such a reminder, don't be WP:BOLD. Read WP:CON. That trumps WP:BOLD, especially for drastic changes. And it did not hurt me personally (nor did I imply such). It violated the spirit of WP:CON. In all the time I have edited Wikipedia, I have never seen such a drastic edit without consensus (excluding obvious vandalism). Let me turn the tables. How hard would it have been for you to raise the issue on the talk page and waited for responses before splitting?
 * I continue to oppose a split. This artile is superb as it is (and I have no vested interest; I have contributed very little to the article). It could easily qualify as a featured article if someone took the time to seek that. It is not too long; it is simply thoroughly (and very professionally) written, unlike many Wikipedia pages.
 * Now, please be kind enough to wait and see if a consensus emerges. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even disagreeing with you.
 * WP:BOLD and WP:CON exist side-by-side. WP:BRD. It may only be an essay, but there's no reason we can't use it. I have every right to be bold, and unless I see a discussion suggesting that such a bold edit in itself is controversial, I won't seek consensus unless it's a GA or FA (in which being bold and splitting would make it unstable and perhaps result in its demotion). However, I am doing everything appropriately - I made a bold edit, it was reverted, and then we discussed it.
 * It would not be hard at all, but if there was no controversy over such an edit, then the consensus-seeking would be pointless and only delay the inevitable. If my bold edit results in someone expressing disagreement with it, then we can try to form a consensus. But nothing is hurt that I made such an edit, and consensus was formed, so no one is hurt and it's a non-issue.
 * The article is at a size that tells us we should consider splitting. The fact of the matter is that in splitting, we could easily make two articles that could reach FA class eventually. With or without the full content, this article could reach featured status easily.
 * And way to make a statement that suggests I'm not waiting to see if a consensus emerges. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "BRD is most useful for pages where seeking consensus would be difficult.: Absolutely no difficulties here seeking consensus.
 * You first said "I disagree", then you said "I wasn't even disagreeing with you". English is my native language, and that's what we English speakers call a contradiction.
 * "if there was no controversy over such an edit, then the consensus-seeking would be pointless: If there was no controversy, you could have posted a talk page message "I want to split this article", waited a couple of days, get no response, and proceed to split. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper that needs to be finalized for a deadline. We have all the time in the world. And seeking consensus shows that you gave the issue a bit of thought and realized others might disagree. That goes beyond even Wikipedia policies; that's common courtesy.
 * "And way to make a statement that suggests I'm not waiting to see if a consensus emergesz': One more time. I offered everyone a reminder. If you can't handle reminders, don't be WP:BOLD.
 * "The article is at a size that tells us we should consider splitting": Your opinion (and that's fine), but I disagree. If this were an article about a film most people had never heard of, you might have a point. But for this film, the article is about the right size. Ward3001 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It says most useful, it never says "is only to be used if..."
 * You do realize that you are not the only person involved in the discussion? And that the other person in reference could be the one I'm speaking to?
 * May I suggest you take it down a notch and remember that this is a very insignificant deal? What I did amounted to "nothing", so I honestly am lost as to why part of your argument involves that this was anything important.
 * Right back at ya on taking it down a notch. And I don't consider the issue of being considerate to other editors "nothing". Ward3001 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That you are the only person who has ever opposed a split doesn't inspire me to believe that it was a particularly controversial split, so why should I not have followed WP:BOLD?
 * We've been discussing this ... let's see ... three or four hours. Yeah ... that's lots of time to conclude "only person who has ever opposed a split". Ward3001 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "This page is 110 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." Well, I guess you're disagreeing with Wikipedia too then? Being notable doesn't mean it needs to be big, it means it's notable enough that sections of its article are notable enough. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also talk to User:DCGeist first, since he's the main primary editor on the article, IIRC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I alerted him to the split when it was done.
 * Also, I must add that this article takes somewhat of a time to load. At some point, we have to take that into account. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I personally am not against a split - I just disagree with the way in which this one has been done, and how it has been split. As for the number of references, this is not really relevant, as plenty of controversial or biographical articles have much greater numbers well in the 200-300 vicinity. (And refs shouldn't be counted as part of the content for size counts.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm open to any kind of split (of course, unless it's just absurd or against Wikipedia policy). However, I still think that this split in particular is most helpful, because it brings the article's size down to acceptable size and creates a new article that could legitimately become a featured article as well without hurting this article's chances. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * NARH, maybe you need a faster computer or internet connection. Right now I'm using DSL with a computer that's about four years old, and I see the article almost instantly unless Wikipedia is running slow and everything takes a long time to load. There might be reasons to split, but (no pun intended) it's splitting hairs to use that as an argument. And yes, I've very much interested in DCGeist's opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got a good computer and broadband. Compared to other articles, this takes a while to load. There is no harm in splitting, but in some peoples' opinions, there is harm in keeping it in - the reason it suggests splitting is because of length, and we should take that suggestion seriously. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think we've all said what we wanted to say; I'd like to hear some other voices. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say I'm mildly opposed to a split. If there was a consensus that the article was too long--which there doesn't seem to be--I agree with Girolamo that the critical analysis section would make the most sense to split off. In the end, though, I'm not convinced that any section would really work in a stand-alone context. I must say I'm a bit surprised anyone experiences a problem with load time. I have a 3.5-year-old laptop, alternating between dialup and stolen borrowed wifi. I've never experienced a particular issue with load time on this article.—DCGeist (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly opposed to this sort of split. Development and production should not be split out from the main article like that, nor is it really necessary. The article really needs some clean up and structuring fixes, and a copyedit. I'd suspect if those were address, the size would come down as there seems to be some fairly excessive detail on some trivia stuff in some sections, and, quite honestly, far too many non-free images used under fairly slim rationales. The plot section is also overly detailed, such as the extraneous detail on Vincent's "Royale with cheese." That isn't essential to the plot at all. Before any splits are considered, all other content/format issues should be resolved. Then, and only then, if the page is still "too long" should any kind of split be considered at all, and then certainly not the development section. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * AnmaFinotera, several of those details are included in the plot summary because of the unusual nature of the film's influence and reputation. You are correct that the "Royale with cheese" monologue is not essential to the progression of the plot, but it is hardly "extraneous". As we establish later on, it is one of several elements in the film that became quite famous—it is thus helpful to the reader to understand exactly where that scene occurs in the film. Other details (such as the description of Butch and Vincent arriving at Marsellus's "now inexplicably dressed in T-shirts and shorts") are included to help establish the knotty structure of the film. Given both the film's (a) unusual level of fame and (b) unusually complex structure, I think the length of the plot summary in this case is appropriate. That said, there's a few elements that could be cut (e.g., "He pays Jimmy generously from a wad of cash for his help"), if there was a general feeling that was necessary.—DCGeist (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with AnmaFinotera; a split is not necessary. Instead, a further copyedit and discussion of the necessity of individual elements would be more appropriate. If after that there is consensus to split, something along the lines of Interpretations of Pulp Fiction would probably be the best choice. Steve  T • C 20:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I also have to disagree with a split for the most part. Like others have suggested, maybe the "Critical analysis" section is a candidate for splitting off.  The article, though it is long (and comprehensive), will not grow any longer, so such an act seems unnecessary.  Perhaps we could try to summarize more adequately some aspects of the article? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I think the length of the article is fine right now, if enough people favor it, I would not object to some very judicious trimming. By the way, one reason I oppose a split is that similar articles that had a split ended up scrapping the newer article that was carved out of the main article. I'm thinking in particular about Kill Bill. At one time there were at least two subarticles (besides the usual soundtrack articles) with an additional proposal to split into Kill Bill 1 and Kill Bill 2. Eventually only List of Kill Bill characters survived the split, and the KB1-KB2 idea was rejected. Ward3001 (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hawthorne Grill
Proving that you can't believe everything you read even in good sources like the Baltimore Sun, the diner was not Pann's. Pann's is on La Tijera. The actual location was the Hawthrone Grill and you can clearly see Hawthorne Blvd out the windows. It is a divided road with a wide space between the north and south bound sides taken up by open green space and parking. The grill was torn down about 10 years ago and replaced with an Auto Zone store.

http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/p/pulpf.html

Yet, seeing that I live in Hawthrone and went to the diner before it closed, I also know for a fact that it's the one. As do most long time residents. The diner did have Googie architecture, that's true. Just it wasn't Pann's. What is hysterical, if you follow the link to the article about Pann's, it states that it isn't the diner either. RoyBatty42 (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Found a good source for the right location. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NALOXONE VS ADRENALINE
When Mia Wallace takes an OD of Heroin she is given adrenaline which in truth would do nothing to help her recover the intermuscular delivery of the medication would give one the idea that NALOXONE the drug Vincent Vega and the drug dealer were using or should have been a warning maybe a good Idea justin case someone reads the article and believes adrenaline would do something. Nate Riley 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It also would be a good idea to put a little punctuation in your edit so that we can understand it. Ward3001 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nate is talking about the scene in which the drug dealer administers adrenaline via a needle punched through the sternum. There's so many basic factual problems with this scene that it's hard to know where to start.  a) snorting heroin (in the assumption that it's cocaine) is unlikely to make you overdose, because the opioids are way less bioavailable when snorted than injected.  It's a *lot* safer than injecting heroin.  However, assuming that you did manage to overdose after snorting a line of heroin;  b) opioid overdose occurs because opioids act on the part of the brain that controls the diaphragm and hence breathing.  ie you essentially forget to breathe.  The heart isn't involved at all.  Delivering adrenaline or any other medication to the heart won't do anything for a heroin-related overdose.  Epinephrine/Adrenaline is occasionally used as one of a batch of drugs used to treat cardiac arrest, but even in that context it's administered IV, not through the sternum.  Nate is completely right in stating the correct medication would be naloxone hydrochloride (tradename Narcan), which is usually administered intramuscularly in emergency settings. It can be administered IV, subcutaneously, sublingually (this last is unusual, and mainly done in the context of surgery), or via a nasal spray.  But there's be absolutely no reason to ever try and jam a needle through the sternum to administer it.  c) The sternum is *thick*.  Actually punching a needle through it without a hydraulic press or similar tool is difficult, and if you actually achieved it, you'd almost certainly do significant damage to anything you hit on the other side.  At the very least, you'll have ripped a hole in the pleural cavity which will affect your breathing.  Mia would have been in hospital for the rest of the movie.  Then there's the question of why you'd bother - if you were hypothetically trying to deliver a medication directly to either the heart or lungs both of those are accessible via gaps in the ribcage.  And if you're really trying to reach the heart, the lungs, or the brain the simplest way is IV, because it'll get there in seconds and you won't run the risk of organ trauma.


 * Finally, and most pertinently, in my direct experience working with departments of public health in the Western United States to promote naloxone use in the context of endemic heroin-related overdose, the single thing we keep hearing from politicians and community members is "you inject this stuff when someone overdoses - like, you ram it through the ribcage like in Pulp Fiction? That sounds way too crazy to me."   This one scene in a now sixteen year old movie is *still* having a negative effect on promoting a simple, effective public health intervention for something that kills about thirty thousand Americans every year.   I enjoyed the movie a lot, but I really really wish this scene had never made it to the release cut.  Caitifty (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"... it revitalized the career of its leading man, John Travolta"
Wouldn't "leading actor" be a better way to put it? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have included the eating of the hamburger as a notable motif. To my mind, it is the most memorable part of the film. The other notable motifs each have a picture next to them and it would be useful to have a picture of Jules eating the hamburger. I'm not sure how to do that and there may be copyright issues.

AJP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.94.228 (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Injection Scene Music
when Vincent (John Travolta) injects heroin in Lance's house and is shown to be in a high mood while driving, what is the music that is played in the background? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.19.52 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The eating of the hamburger is a very notable motif. Why has this been deleted? My request in the talk page that it be accompanied by a picture of Jules eating the hamburger also seems to have been removed. I noticed that someone wrote, "original research?" next to what I wrote and in truth, I do not have any sources, nevertheless, it is one of the most memorable scenes and I cannot see how else it could be interpreted than as a mean attempt to deny his victim even the last meal of a condemned man. Could it be reverted?

AJP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.94.228 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoever reverted you was right. Your personal interpretation of eating hamburgers in the film is original research and may not be included in WP. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. Although this is pretty obvious, I see that it needs references. As I thought, I'm not the only one to read this into the hamburger scene and I have now found suitable references two primary and one secondary:

I'm not sure how to do the referencing and contents which I missed last time, so I'll post it here and leave it to someone else to put it in or not: "Uwe Nagel interprets this action as the refusal of the last meal in preparation for the execution. (Nagel p.1211) I also want to add that it is also a way to debase the young man, to make Jules' power obvious to everyone - the viewer as well as the attendees.2"

"In the American system of justice the accused has a right to defence, to reasonable doubt. The judge and jury will take into consideration extenuating circumstances. If condemned to die a prisoner has a long appeals process, a chance for clemency and at the very least a last meal. All denied to the college boys led by the big-brained Brett."3

(1) NAGEL, Uwe Der rote Faden aus Blut: Erzählstrukturen bei Quentin Tarantino Uwe Nagel 1997 (2) RADKA, Sandra Pulp Fiction – An analysis of Storyline and Characters. (3) ADRIENSWORDS, THE PATH OF THE RIGHTEOUS February 19, 2007

Excepts of (2) can be found at: http://www.grin.com/e-book/41586/pulp-fiction-an-analysis-of-storyline-and-characters (3) http://adrienswords.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/the-path-of-the-righteous/

This is what I had written before it was deleted for not containing sources: "The eating of the hamburger

This may represent the ultimate humiliation of the the victim. Traditionally, a condemned man is given a hearty meal. When Jules summarily executes Brett, he first taunts him about his food then eats his breakfast thus depriving him of his last meal."

AJP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.94.228 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing dividers
The summary reads fine without their inclusion, and in fact I think the divders introduce a confusing "stutter" of sorts that works in opposition to the natural storyline breaks (the headers within the Plot section). I am going to remove them, as it seems like a fairly non-controversial eidt. -- TRTX T / C 05:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They've been restored. Your edit made the section both less accurate and more ugly. The movie itself, by the way, includes precisely what you refer to as "stutters": the three primary storylines are preceded by identifying intertitles on a black screen, exactly as the article presently says and the well-established design of the plot section suggests.—DCGeist (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you find another example of when a film with a fractured/non-linear narrative is split with dividers? Looking at two other Tarantino films (since those would be the first place to look naturally) neither, Resevoir Dogs or Kill Bill feature this awkward use of dividers.  I'm sorry, but the use of dividers suggests a separation from the plot section which is not accurate.  If such a division is going to be used it should at least follow the natural format of WP instead of introducing a confusing split without any sort of designation as to why. As per WP:BOLD I am going to continue to work towards a solution that works more naturally than the current dividers. -- TRTX T / C 14:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made a new edit, which uses the same "titles" as defined earlier in the article. While the film itself is presented in a fractured means...our duty as WP editors is not to simulate this nature, but rather to provide the reader with the best means of understanding the film.  As somebody who has seen the film on numerous occasions, I still found the splits unnatural when reading hence why I edited (as per WP:BOLD).  Since the article already makes a point of helping the user understand the natural sequence of events in the film earlier, it is only logical that the plot should be presented using the same divisions (as the user has hopefully seen these titles and will recognize them in the plot section).  I respect the appreciation you have for the film, but the goal isn't to write an article for fans of the film...but rather for those who have not seen it...or have and wish to get a better grasp of what they watched. -- TRTX T / C 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One additional note: I have italicized the three headers that are actual titles, as these are essentially "shorts" within the overall movie, and thus would warrant italics similar to that of a film. -- TRTX T / C 14:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As i've noted in edit summary, the latest attempt at a redesign inaptly puts the same emphasis on the conventional names for the brief prelude sections as it does on the official, visible story names. The existing design of the section has been extensively discussed and is well established. If you believe it can be improved on, you'll need to make a strong case for an alternative design here and establish a consensus behind it.—DCGeist (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the case I am putting forward is a very good one, and while a consensus may exist (which I have been unable to dig out of the fairly large archives), I feel that I am not being given any opportunity to open a discussion regarding change as any attempt I have made at compromise is quickly being reverted with a simple: "Nope, not what it was before." It's especially irritating when the only basis for the reversion surrounds organization of the movie, impact in regards to the movie, and significance in the movie, which only furthers my original point that this page is being treated like a fan summary and tribute more than an informative article the provides the best means of understanding the movie.  Remember, consensus can change. -- TRTX T / C 18:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Mr. Geist. The long-standing version more accurately reflects the structure of the film and is far more aesthetically elegant. No compelling case has been made for changing it. And it's unimpressive to call out others for reverting when you're doing exactly the same thing yourself, M. TRTX. DocKino (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I fail to see how WP's duty is to "reflect the structure" of the film vs. simpy summarizing the events. The film is already discussed as being shown in a fractured/non-linear fashion...and I've yet to see anybody actually provide any compelling counter arguments aside from bias to the pre-existing version (including "This version is superior" used in the reversion with no discussion as to why).  Nor have either you or the other editor have actually provided any answer to my questions as to why other Taratino films with a simliar fractured narrative aren't treated in this fashion. -- TRTX T / C 02:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

← I have requested comment to get the view of some editors outside the scope of this article. This will hopefully help fuel the type of discussion that Geist was suggesting I open. Furthermore, I take offense to DocKino's comments regarding my use of reversion, as I am simply acting within the scope of WP:BOLD in an attempt to open a discussion as per WP:CCC. I feel that any attempt at consensus is being steamrolled in favor of the "norm" simply because that's just how it's been. Which to me is against the spirit of the project as a whole. -- TRTX T / C 02:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is the current Plot summary formatting sufficient?
Does the current use of dividers in the Plot section fit within the common WP format standards? -- TRTX T / C 02:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Quale (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet nor does the structure of the film—both in terms of its narrative chronology and the visual/conceptual ruptures caused by the storyline titles and blackouts—fit within the common cinematic standards. The film's structure is exceptional; its accurate representation calls for some common-sense exceptions to formatting norms.—DCGeist (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why haven't those same concepts been applied in situations such as Resevoir Dogs and Kill Bill (in the case of non-linear Tarantino films) or Memento (in the case of films with an non-linear storyline). It is not our duty at WP to recreate the film for readers, but to summarize the information in a manner that provides for the best understanding of what happened.  If the film were presented literally played in reverse, ew dluow siht ekil yrammus eht etirw t'ndluow ew?  As I have said previously, it appears that fans of the film have started treating this page as a "tribute" more than an encyclopedic collection of information. -- TRTX T / C 02:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? First, the film's structure is not as exceptional as you seem to think.  Second, wikipedia articles are supposed to follow WP:MOS.  I don't see anything there that says you can ignore the MOS if you think the subject is exceptional.  In fact the horizontal rules on the page are ugly and distracting and make it harder to read rather than easier. If you're arguing that the film's structure is so exceptional that it deserves an exceptionally ugly wikipedia page, I'll have to disagree.  Quale (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, you obviously misunderstand the status of the MOS. It is not a policy. It is merely a guideline. Thus it can be "ignored" for any reason whatsoever. Second, you have obviously failed to consider the summary at the lead of the MOS, which explicitly notes that there are "occasional exceptions" to the guideline and refers you to our most fundamental rule: Ignore All Rules. You appear to be unfamiliar with that credo or to have forgotten it. Please familiarize or refamiliarize yourself with it and the wisdom it embodies.
 * Now, "ugly" we can fairly discuss. You think it's ugly. I don't, nor do others who have previously commented on the design. So where does raising "ugly" get us?—DCGeist (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a tough nut to crack. First, I think we should be able to do without dividers. However, I think that there are too many subsections in TRTX's revision. While the film has an unconventional structure, we do not need to copy its lack of convention (though the effort made is admirable). When I research a film, an academic article often gives a summary of the film before analyzing it. Is it possible to find an article that adequately summarizes it (particularly without dividers) and cite that article to summarize the film in a way that is more straightforward than any of our personal attempts to do so? — Erik (talk • contrib) 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A previous edit I made here managed to remove dividers while still maintaining only 3 sections. The only real changes were that the "prelude" to The Gold Watch (the portion featuring Christopher Walken) was wrapped into The Gold Watch section, and the epilouge is wrapped into The Bonnie Situation since it takes place immediately after the events of that sequence anyway. -- TRTX T / C 19:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But that falsifies the evident structure of the film. The Walken prelude precedes the "Gold Watch" intertitle; we should not inaccurately present it as following that title. The epilogue is separated from "The Bonnie Situation" by a blackout in the film and is discussed as a distinct, separate sequence both by Tarantino and by those scholars who offer detailed analyses of the film's structure. The current summary accurately reflects the distinction between "The Bonnie Situation" and the epilogue. Why would we ever want to replace that with a summary that improperly "wraps" the two together?—DCGeist (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the summary is to summarize the film, not recreate it in miniature. At the least, the dividers and section headings should go. As far as reordering the plot by chronology vs scene order, I'm ambivalent - whatever best aids a clear and comprehensive summary is fine to me. I don't see this as being particularly difficult, however - we do it all the time with simple devices such as flashbacks and cross-cutting actions, and while the fragmented approach of the film may be unusual to a recent Hollywood film, it is not at all uncommon as a historical trope across world cinema (Kieslowski, Belvaux, Godard, Resnais), nor as a storytelling device (e.g. frame tales). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. Reordering the plot by chronology is both unnecessary and misleading. The dividers and section headings accurately convey the structure of the film; removing them significantly decreases our accuracy and yields little to nothing of benefit in return.—DCGeist (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I never saw this movie. I read the plot summary twice and in my opinion it's very confusing and hard to follow. Is that because the movie is the same way or does this summary have to be rewritten so it makes more sense? 209.247.21.77 (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hard to say. Please see the movie and tell us.—DCGeist (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment, and Geist's subsequent response, are further evidence to the point I am trying to make. A reader has voiced their confusion upon reading the summary, and the response by one of the editors is to watch the film.  If the article does not make sense to somebody who doesn't already know the subject, then the article has failed in its duty and must be rewritten. -- TRTX T / C 18:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus seems to be to do away with dividers. It still seems up in the air on how to use subsection headings.  Instead of editors writing the plot summary using the film itself as a source, I think we should look into finding secondary sources that already summarize the film in some form.  I agree with GS that the summary shouldn't be recreated in miniature; we should defer to how others have summarized it and avoid such a complex structure here in the article.  Are there any academic articles that outline the film before delving into an analysis of it? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have pointed to other films with non-linear progression in previous suggestions. Such as Memento and Resevoir Dogs.  I think with a moderate amount of rewrite the current summary can be reworded to properly signify transitions between stories/time periods.  For example, the summary for the prelude to The Gold Watch begins:
 * Television time for young Butch (Chandler Lindauer) is interrupted by the arrival of Vietnam veteran Captain Koons (Christopher Walken).
 * Now, the summary has already introduced Butch earlier (when it summarizes the events of Vincent Vega and Marcellus Wallace's Wife), so in this regard the transition in both story and time can be demonstrated with something as follows:
 * The film now cuts to a flashback of young Butch (Chandler Lindauer) in his home, where he is visited by Vietnam veteran Captain Koons (Christopher Walken).
 * And end with...
 * A bell rings, waking the adult Butch from his flashback. He is in his boxing attire, and ready to begin the fight Wallace has paid him to throw.
 * Also keep in mind that the only segment that is "off" in this film is the final one (The Bonnie Situation). Otherwise, the prologue in the diner, the stop at the apartment, Vega/Mrs. Wallace's "date", and Butch's tale are all in sequence.  So the only time where a "jump" is required is when we transition the reader from the events of The Gold Watch to The Bonnie Situation.  That shouldn't be too difficult if we just mention that the film "goes back" (or some other language) to the scene in Brett's apartment, possibly including "earlier in the film" to remind readers that this is a step back chronilogically. -- TRTX T / C 16:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary should recount (in broad strokes) the events depicted on screen, in the order in which they appear. It is not necessary to use special formatting to do this (language is sufficient), as TRTX demonstrates just above. In fact, I would find that much clearer than the use of an invented and unexplained visual device. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The sub-section headings such as The Gold Watch seem just fine. The purpose of the horizontal rules is unclear.  It does not seem good practise to depend upon the appearance of these as Wikipedia formatting and browsers may render them differently in future. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised by this comment, as I am by much of the discussion. It seems perfectly clear to me that the horizontal rules allow the reader to better comprehend the structure of the film, especially if they've read the preceding "Narrative structure" section. The first divider helps make clear that the following plot element ("Prelude to 'Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace's Wife'") is distinct not only in space but also in chronological time from the prologue diner sequence. The second divider, crucially, helps makes clear that the following plot element ("Prelude to 'The Gold Watch'") is completely distinct from the preceding plot element ("Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace's Wife"). The third divider is there for consistency. The fourth divider is again important--it helps make clear that the following plot element (the epilogue diner sequence) is considered to be distinct from the preceding element ("The Bonnie Situation").


 * More generally, I'd like to say this: I do not presume to claim that the current formation of the "Plot" section is perfect. But it is better--frankly, much better in most cases--than any of the alternatives I've seen to date. DocKino (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As demonstrated by an earlier exchange in this discussion, the dividers are unclear to those who have not seen the movie...with the suggested resolution (from an editor in support of the current format) being "see the movie". I myself have seen the movie on numerous occasions and still wasn't quite sure as to why dividers were used at any point, considering similiar films with a non-linear narrative are not formatted in this way (a point that no editor in support of the current format has yet to address). -- TRTX T / C 04:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Making the change
As per this discussion, I'm going to go ahead and perform an initial rewrite on this section of the article. -- TRTX T / C 15:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If there's going to be a change, let's make sure the quality of the new version is at least as good as the current one. This "initial rewrite" added all sorts of excess verbiage, and muddies at least the distinction between "The Bonnie Situation" and the epilogue, confusing to a reader who's read the "Narrative structure" section and expects that the "Plot" section will make clear the distinctions. We can work on a revision on this page, right here, and then apply it when consensus on its format (including any necessary rewording) is reached. DocKino (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it fair to say that we can put together such a write-up without using horizontal lines? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate finally coming to a consenus in regards to start reformatting the article, I can't help put notice a striking simliarity between the "final version" proposed by DocKino and an edit I made before this whole mess started. What's even more confusing is this edit was reverted by the same editor that now supports the very same style of edit.  Which leaves me questioning why we had to go through this whole rigamarole when apparently this was a completely acceptable option the whole time? -- TRTX T / C 00:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Added a small note
Added a note about the contents of the brief case. Had a teacher who was part of the class that he was at. Should I add what was in the case? It DOES in fact change the entire movie's concept so it might be worth noting. I cant site the incident with more then a first person account.


 * If it can only be cited to a first-person account, it can't be mentioned at all in this encyclopedia. Take a look at our policies concerning verifiability and what we refer to as original research.—DCGeist (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Guess the contents will remain off wikipedia then unless he unveils it some point in the future on some interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.131.153 (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Pulp Fiction characters
There are three choices: Redirect the article without merging anything, merge anything relevant added to the article, or remove any instance of character related information beyond some bare basics, and allow the list to handle all of the information. Now, this article is quite large, so some kind of split may be appropriate, but I would rather see "Cultural impact of Pulp Fiction" split instead of a character article. Thoughts? TTN (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if anyone is wondering if such a split would work, Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which is on the same line, works well in conjunction with its main article. TTN (talk)
 * (1) The list article is wretchedly written. (2) All of the essential information is present in the main article. Conclusion: Complete merge and erase the list article.—DCGeist (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ezekiel 25:17
isn't what Jules says. It is "And I will execute great vengance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengance is upon them." In the King James Version anyway. The rest of what Jules claims to be Ez 25:17 is I don't know what.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  08:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's from the Sonny Chiba movie The Bodyguard, which can be found for $1 from Digiview. Tarentino stole it from that movie's intro word for word. Sierraoffline444 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ringo
. . . Jules addressing "Pumpkin" as "Ringo" because of his English accent. ..

Any citation confirming this? To me it sounds very POV, & more than a little far fetched. Roth's voice differs a long long way from Ringo Starr's. Personally, I always assumed that Jules calls the armed robber this as a reference to the gunfighter Johnny Ringo, who crops up in various westerns. w easeLOID 21:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While I do regard the Ringo Starr reference as more likely, your point is very well taken. I've substituted a pop culture reference ("Flock of Seagulls") whose source is verifiable. Thanks for the catch.—DCGeist (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've also removed the unsourced claim about this monicker from the list of Pulp Fiction characters article.  As a matter of interest, Tarantino nominated both A Pistol for Ringo and The Return of Ringo in his Top 20 Favourite Spaghetti Westerns.  I wouldn't be surprised if the "Ringo" dialogue in Pulp Fiction might be a sly reference to these, but I haven't seen either of those films so I can't say further.  & Needless to say this is all OR & should stay out of the article unless a firm citation about the connection shows up.  :-)   w easeLOID  22:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summary
The article for the 2006 movie Deja Vu also contains an unconventional storyline structure. It's plot description is suffering due to the lack of any mention of the previous timelines (which are not explicitly shown happening but for which there is explicit and definitive evidence within the film). The current plot summary is misleading and akin to a plot summary of Pulp Fiction that refuses to acknowledge the non-chronological structure of the film (and indeed there is no explicit statement in the film that says it has such a structure yet everyone accepts it as such because it is very clearly implied. Perhaps editors of this article could help with the wikipedia bureaucracy that is making the Deja Vu article extremely misleading and incomplete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.250.31 (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images
This article has entirely too many non-free images. Many do not meet the non-free use guidelines and don't have adequate fair use rationales. There needs to be a discussion of which ones to remove, and of how to improve the rationales for the ones that remain. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 12:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Entirely too many"? On what policy basis? Each image is clearly used to convey very different information, so there's no question of that sort of NFCC #3 issue. As for rationales, which do you find particularly problematic? DocKino (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost all the images in the latter portion of the article are unnecessary and aren't describing anything that needs an image. What does File:PulpFictionMedieval.jpg demonstrate that can't be demonstrated through text alone? Same for File:Pulp Fiction-Bible.jpg (unless you're talking about something special about Samuel L. Jackson's face in this very scene, there's no reason for an image here). Same for File:PulpFictionToilet.jpg&mdash;doesn't show anything that couldn't be shown just by saying "in one scene, Travolta reads this book...". Same with File:PulpFictionCase.jpg and its partner image, there's no need for an image to convey the simple idea that Travolta is looking into a case (for comparison, see the article on Barton Fink; that movie has a similar MacGuffin, and the article needs no picture of it. That article is a real FA, whereas this one is a failed FA). As for your rationales, all of them are problematic, as none of them show why the image needs to be used; for an example of a real NFUR, see the lower half of File:Bigissue.jpg.
 * The four images that precede these are ok, although they could use better NFURs. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you actually even look at the version of this article that failed FA? It's got virtually nothing to do with the present article. I'm also left scratching my head by your reference to "the simple idea that Travolta is looking into a case"—a lot more is going on in that image and in the cinematic allusion than simply looking into a case. If that's all that was going on, I'd agree with you, but it's evidently quite a bit more than that, as both images clarify. On the images of Rhames and Jackson, I tend to agree with you. The toilet shot, however, I think really helps us to understand the effect of what Tarantino is doing in a way that words alone don't come close to. DocKino (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the briefcase, if that is the case then the image caption needs to be much more explanatory about why this image is important. Something along the lines of "a lightbulb was used to produce the orange glow for this iconic image..." yada yada. Just captioning it "Vincent looks into a briefcase" makes it sound like plot summary and does nothing to enforce why this visual media is necessary to support the article.
 * As for the toilet, I still don't really see why that image is significant. The accompanying text appears to be about the plot and thematic implications of the toilet scenes, not anything about the visual effects themselves. If the prose is not about the visual stuff, there's no need for a non-free image. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 10:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As there have been no new objections in over a week, I am going to go ahead and remove the pictures I listed above, and tag them for deletion. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It was instructive to look at the article without the images. While most of those removed certainly enhanced the experience of the article, they did not clearly contribute in a significant way to its informational value. The image of Vincent staring into the glowing case, and its comparison to the Kiss Me Deadly image, however, do--especially in light of the article's overarching focus on the issue of cinematic allusion. I'll get to work on upgrading the captions and rationales.—DCGeist (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope you do; it's been 10 days since I posted the last message and no one bothered to act on it, and now that I remove the images suddenly someone's willing to improve the NFURs. I'll look at whatever improvement you make (given that it's been over an hour since you removed the image, I imagine you must be working on quite a caption over there) but if they don't address the issues raised above I'll have no choice but to take them to FFD. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Briefcase contents
Even though we're never actually told whats in the briefcase, it clearly contained gold, probably bars. Note the robber's reaction when it is opened -- he immediately recognizes it. And it emits a yellow reflection. Discuss. --24.21.149.124 (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not one authoritative source concurs with your view that the briefcase "clearly" contains gold. There is a discussion of the briefcase issue in the article. Read.—DCGeist (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On first seeing this movie before reading any speculation on what the briefcase contained, I assumed it contained heroin, and the glow was just to show us the beauty of the contents in the eyes of the beholders. The briefcase clearly does not contain gold, for we see it being carried about with one hand.  (It made me laugh to see George Clooney in the movie about stealing Iraqi gold pick up a supposed gold ingot the size and shape of a carton of cigarettes with one hand.)  A cubic foot of gold weighs 1204.85 pounds, according to this site.  Assuming the inner dimensions of the briefcase (I don't have one handy, just guessing) to be 1.5 inches x 10 inches x 16 inches, such a briefcase full of gold would weigh in at slightly over 167 pounds.  Next theory?  --CliffC (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Roger Avary (by way of Snopes.com) the briefcase originally contained diamonds, which were later made "ambiguous" so that it would be filled in with whatever was special to each individual viewer. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTracker (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Snopes is not a reliable source. And can we please restrict discussion to improving the article (reliable sources would be nice) rather than idle speculation. Ward3001 (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

how is the snopes article not a reliable source? it cites its references. according to roger avery, it contained originally contained diamonds, then was supposed to be filled with whatever the viewer thought was the "ultimate contents". Ebert, Roger. Questions for the Movie Answer Man. New York: Andrews & McMeel, 1997. ISBN 0-836-22894-4. 24.144.44.138 (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And our article already describes the original intent (diamonds), citing the passage in Snopes referencing Ebert/Avary. So our job here is done.DocKino (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How can the job be done when there is no mention of Alex Cox's 1984 film Repo Man, which featured an identical MacGuffin? (And yet Raiders of the Lost Ark is namechecked, even though the similarities begin and end with "a box containing glowing things" - we know exactly what's in the Ark - souls.)  I think this is relevant, even though Tarantino himself seems to be unaware of the connection. 87.194.209.163 (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WOW....probabaly the most important point of this cult film and 99.5% of people have not connected the dots....the briefcase contains the SOUL of Marsellus Wallace...it is the age old battle of good v's evil......Wallace sold his soul to the devil (hence band aid on the back of his head, in black magic and or voodoo, this is how your soul is removed).....the soul was placed in the briefcase..... then Marsellus Wallace reneged on the deal and sent Jules and Vincent to get it back..... devine intervention, Vincent's bad luck, the whole movie is about the constant push and pull of the battle between good and evil.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxxlogan (talk • contribs) 06:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the bandage was to hide a scar on the back of the neck of the actor that played Marsellus Wallace. It wasnt intended to be part of the movie. but that is a well thought out theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.195.47 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an EXCELLENT article
Great job everybody that worked on this article. Supremely professional, interesting, well-researched, informative, a delight to read!!!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is fantastically informative. Surely it meets the Good article criteria? Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. It failed a Good article review in October 2007 for several reasons, and that version looks, at first glance, not a whole lot different than the current version. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, it obviously meets and surpasses the criteria. The reviewer who happened to choose it raised issues that were virtually all personal opinions concerning style and formatting. Acceding to the reviewer's wishes would have hardly resulted in a better article, and in many ways, would have produced a worse one. Surprise--this happens often in the GA process. However, if you have any specific proposals for improving the article's quality, do please share them. DocKino (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I already did raise a specific proposal below, and you DCGeist took care of it, albeit not in any sort of timely fashion. r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And, for what it's worth, I agree with some of the reviewer's comments. Particularly, the latter half of the article (critical reception and such) seems a bit disorganized/muddled/haphazard/however you'd like to put it. Furthermore, some of the prose (in the Plot section, which is one of the few sections I've glanced at) is so muddled, rambling, and over-detailed as to be nearly incomprehensible; a case in point is the aimless sentence Butch and Vincent briefly cross paths, Vincent insults Butch calling him "Palooka" and "Punchy" but Butch decides not to pick a fight knowing Vincent is good friends with Marsellus as Vincent and Jules—now inexplicably dressed in T-shirts and shorts—arrive to deliver the briefcase. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually think the whole GA and FA process is a glorious waste of time and effort in bureaucracy. Rjanag, if you want to improve the article, just do it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said I wanted to (I'm pretty sure I just ended up at this article randomly when dealing with image issues with a specific user). You asked if the article meets the GA criteria, and I responded. Sorry you didn't like the answer.
 * And I'm not really sure what makes you think you can criticize me for "not improving the article" when you haven't made a single edit to it. "If you want to improve the article just do it" applies to you just as much as to me, you know. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Pumpkin
The article says Tim Roth plays Pumpkin or Ringo. Certainly the character is referred to as Pumpkin in the end credits, and that is what HunnyBunny refers to him as. I am wondering whether to remove "Ringo" as this is only what Jules refers to him as, and no explanation is given--TimothyJacobson (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. The plot summary does mention that Jules calls him "Ringo", but you're right about there being no explanation. There used to be one, but discussion here revealed that the reason for the nickname couldn't be verified according to our standards, so the explanation we offered was eliminated. I've always liked it in the "Cast" section for the sake of comprehensiveness, but if it strikes you as odd or mystifying I don't have a problem with eliminating it there.—DCGeist (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Will leave it for now. Personally, I don't mind either way, but feel it may contravene some wikipedia rule--TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, just saw your Flock of Seagulls comment much further up the page. Had forgotton Jules had that line.  So maybe the Ringo is just another "pop" reference that Jules makes - again implying it is not Pumpkin's name--TimothyJacobson (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kathy
Also, Kathy Griffin is creditted (in the end credits) as playing herself. She only has a cameo and it is not clear why she is supposed to be playing herself rather than a random extra. Once I've found out the answer to this, should I put it in the article?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like non-encyclopedic trivia to me.—DCGeist (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Only mentioned it because I thought she was quite famous in the states, and I found it interesting as one of the few Brits I know who has heard of her. Again, am happy to leave it out of the article--TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My impression was that if she's "quite famous", it's for one thing: her desperation to be quite famous. I don't mean to be mean, but I caught 10 minutes of her stand-up on TV one night—and I really don't understand why anyone would pay good money for that. (And I apologize for my little outburst if you're a fan. If you are, maybe you could explain?)—DCGeist (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a fan. Didn't know about her desperation to be fasmous show til I just looked it up.  In the UK, we get her on Suddenly Susan repeats, and I think she was in the Muppet movies.  Not a fan myself by any means; I genuinely thought she was "liked" in the states--TimothyJacobson (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently she is—I'm just the cranky type. She just filled one of the bigger show halls here in New York for three nights.—DCGeist (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to make much of the "critical analysis" section into a separate "Interpretations of Pulp Fiction" page
Certain other movies have separate pages for interpreations (e.g. "2001: A Space Odyssey") --Justin Phlum (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Lowercased "pulp fiction" vs. titlecased "Pulp Fiction": a discussion of article titles
I suggest Pulp Fiction redirect to the film. Currently the statuses are as such: In the disambig page, it can be observed that there's a typographical difference between "pulp fiction" and "Pulp Fiction," namely one is lowercased while the other is titlecased. The suggestion that Pulp Fiction, when explicitly capitalized, should redirect to the film is in no way making an assumption that the lowercased term "pulp fiction" is less unimportant. It was just explicitly not intended by the person who spelled it with "F" capitalized. Now, given the choices between the two "Pulp Fiction"s (note the typography), namely the film and the soundtrack that was used in the film, it could be argued that the film is more important than a disambiguation between the two. There are only three usages, so article header disambiguation link(s) at Pulp Fiction redirect destination would not be difficult gymnastics either.
 * Pulp Fiction (film) is the film
 * Pulp Fiction (soundtrack) is the film's soundtrack album
 * Pulp Fiction is a redirect to disambiguation
 * Pulp fiction is the disambiguation page. In it, the film, the album, and the term is listed.

This discussion section was created upon request. At one point someone contradictorily felt the necessity for a discussion first before a future edit, while simultaneously feeling the need to make an edit first before said discussion was to take place. I'm sure this is out of courtesy. The same sentiment can be reiterated to any side of this discussion: please refrain from editing the titlecased Pulp Fiction page should it change from the last time you made edits to it, and wait for the requested consensus. Also I would like to know what the other argument is since I haven't seen it anywhere yet.--Bxj (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Notice: While this location was explicitly suggested for this discussion by the user who reverted my edit to Pulp Fiction, actually I have found a more suitable location for these types of discussions, and I have therefore added a new entry at Redirects for discussion. --Bxj (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Coasters?
At the end of the first paragraph it lists Uma Therman and Samuel L. Jackson as "coasters" and John Travolta as the main Character. While Uma Therman might fall under the catagory of "coaster" Samuel L. Jackson certainly doesnt. The movie itself follows three different stories: that of Vincint Vega with Mia Wallace, that of Butch refusing to throw a boxing match for Marsellus and trying to flee before he can catch him, and that of Jules and Vincint on their way to deliver the case back to Marsellus, during which Jules has a spiritual rewakening. Each one has a different Main character. John Travolta is the first ones main character, Bruce Willis is the second, and Samuel L. Jaackson is the Third (with John Travolta as the backup character in the third story). The point is there are THREE main leads and none of them should be called "coasters". In fact in the special collectors edition of the movie Quentin Tarintino says himself (in the special features section) that the movie is intended too follow three different stories each with its own main character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.195.47 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Although you may have a point, I'm not sure. First, it's "costars", not "coasters". And my understanding is that a "costar" isn't a less prestigious status, but I welcome other opinions. Cresix (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move to Pulp Fiction
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move. While there was substantial minority opposition to using case as a means of disambiguation, this would be an argument for the Pulp fiction page (whether it should redirect here or be a dab page), not this one. Primary usage per WP:Primary usage was proven, and consensus for a move is otherwise clear. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction (film) → Pulp Fiction — Shortening of title requested per current WP:TITLE for the primary topic of the titlecased spelling of "pulp fiction." Bxj (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Poll

 * Support per WP:PRECISION. Clear-cut primary use of the capitalised name. PC78 (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose for reasons covered in previous requests, with considerable discussion and no consensus to make the move: Talk:Pulp Fiction/Archive 2, Talk:Pulp Fiction/Archive 2, and Talk:Pulp Fiction/Archive 1. This has become a perennial requested move that must be re-argued about once every year or so. For people over age 50 who aren't Tarantino fans, "pulp fiction" means a lot more than the film. Cresix (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is "Pulp Fiction", though, not "pulp fiction". It's a necessary distinction that's acceptable per WP:PRECISION. It doesn't mean that pulp fiction will redirect to the film article. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Still oppose, per all the previous discussions and the reasons the article was moved here in 2007. Wikipedia is written for all readers, not just those under 50 years old. Cresix (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not immutable, though. I'm not understand the "50 years old" argument. There is a difference between pulp fiction and Pulp Fiction. I absolutely oppose having pulp fiction point to the film article. This is about what people would search for. If they search "pulp fiction" or "Pulp fiction", they'll access the disambiguation page. If they type "Pulp Fiction", specifically capitalizing the second word, it's highly likely they want the film article. Hatnotes fill any possible gaps. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I say consensus is immutable? If I did, please forgive me, but I don't believe I said that. And "pulp fiction" does not point to this article; totally moot point. Yes, it is about what people would search for, and most people over 50 who are not Tarantino fans and enter "Pulp Fiction" (not unusual for people to capitalize all words) are not searching for the film; they are searching for the information that is now included in Pulp magazine. So I disagree that for those people, "it's highly unlikely they want the film article". (sigh) This has all been argued before. Cresix (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Our disagreement is whether or not it is unusual for people to capitalize all words. Neither of us can cite personal knowledge with absolute authenticity. If there are guidelines (WP:PRECISION) saying that a distinction is made, though, I do not see a reason to disregard them for this given topic. It's about the most likely intention, and hatnotes are frequently used on the off-chance that the topic is not what the reader is looking for. The previous discussions did not cite WP:PRECISION except for one instance where the rebuttal was just WP:IAR. It would depend on how others feel about WP:PRECISION's application here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right: neither of us knows "the most likely intention" or what might be "off-chance". That's why we have the consensus process which takes precedence over any guideline. So here we are again in the third consensus debate on the same issue. Cresix (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The guidelines (WP:PRECISION) are established consensus, according to WP:CONLIMITED; "their stability and consistency are important to the community." Are you disagreeing with these guidelines only as they apply to this pairing of lowercase and title case topics, or would you argue against overturning WP:PRECISION in its entirety? If it's just this pairing, then what makes this different from any other pairing that WP:PRECISION applies to? If it's all of WP:PRECISION, then wouldn't the guidelines talk page be the place to discuss and possibly overturn it, thereby setting up all these similar topics differently? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus for any particular article takes precedence over consensus for a guideline in general if there is no policy violation. Guidelines are not policies. As for "what makes this different from any other pairing", my opinion is that most readers who enter "Pulp Fiction" are not looking for the film. If I understand your opinion correctly, it is that most people who enter "Pulp Fiction" are looking for the film. And since your opinion or my opinion alone does not decide anything when there is disagreement, that's why we are having this consensus discussion. Rigidly following guidelines never takes precedence over what is best for the reader, which I presume is the reason this move is being discussed rather than already being applied without discussion. One of my major hopes when I saw this requested move was that, regardless of how the consensus turns out, all the same arguments would not have to be repeated (especially since I provided the links to them above so that anyone could easily read them) and that an editor could simply cite the previous discussions and express an opinion. That doesn't appear to be how the discussion is going, however. Cresix (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I only want you to defend your argument. :) You think that people who search "Pulp Fiction" are not looking for the film. Is this in opposition to people who search "Red Meat" and are looking for the comic strip as opposed to the food? Is this also in opposition to people who search "Panic Room" and are looking for the safe room as opposed to the film? That is why I was asking "what makes this different from any other pairing". It's the same situation with a pair of two words, one being lowercase and one being title case. If you have an issue with this naming, you should have an issue with the other pairings' namings. Unless it's a matter of not caring about these articles, which I can understand. In addition, I find the arguments that are almost three years old to be lacking because people mix up "Pulp Fiction" and "pulp fiction" with no consideration for WP:PRECISION. Guidelines can be ignored on occasion, I agree, but I'm not sure why this instance qualifies as an exception to them when it matches the guidelines example (red meat vs. Red Meat) perfectly. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand what my position is regarding this discussion from all of my comments above and my expressed agreement with comments in two previous consensus discussions, I don't think I need to defend my point of view any further. I have said again and again and again that my opinion is that most people who enter "Pulp Fiction" are not looking for the film, and that any consensus here about what is best for the reader takes precedence over any guidelines. I don't think it is possible to express those opinions any more clearly. I have expressed my opinions about the issue regarding this article very clearly and multiple times. I could have simply said "Oppose" and ignored everything after that, but I am trying to assume good faith because I believe you can understand plain English and because (on the other hand) you are not purposefully trying to provoke an argument about matters beyond this specific consensus discussion. I hope you will continue to allow me to assume good faith about your motives. If not, I'm finished discussing this particular issue with you. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you really struggling to assume good faith? We're just a couple of editors working to make the encyclopedia better. I'm not trying to stir animosity between us. I understand that you don't think people searching "Pulp Fiction" are looking for the film. I was wanting to understand if this was a specific exception from existing guidelines or a blank opposition to WP:PRECISION. I see now that you are only making a specific case here, without considering guidelines or other articles. That's fine by me. I was just thinking that if WP:PRECISION is debatable, then that wider argument should be had. In any case, we've made ourselves clear, and we'll let others weigh in. Happy editing. :) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Feel free to make any battle about WP:PRECISION on a broader scale. My hands are full repeatedly expressing my point of view in a consensus discussion that is now taking place a third time. BTW,, who almost single-handedly brought this article from mediocre status to one that probably could achieve GA status, expressed an opinion about the broader issue of article titles for films in a previous incarnation of this discussion, if anyone wishes to bother clicking the link above. I hope he will weigh in here again. Cresix (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:PRECISION. There is an intended difference between typing "Pulp fiction" and "Pulp Fiction". WP:PRECISION uses red meat and Red Meat as an example. There's also panic room and Panic Room. Hatnotes point the appropriate direction just in case. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the origin of WP:PRECISION as guidelines, there was a RfC here in October 2009, more recently than this article's previous titling discussions. The outcome of that RfC was WP:PRECISION. Food for thought. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To correct myself, WP:PRECISION is under Article titles, a Wikipedia policy. It is not just a guideline. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And even policies often allow for some flexibility, which certainly is the case here. Note particularly that the phrase "As a general rule" is used. Nothing is carved in stone that will necessarily apply to every article. Cresix (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see a difference between the policy's example of Red Meat and red meat compared to Pulp Fiction and pulp fiction. I'm all for working around policies and guidelines when there are worthwhile arguments to pursue alternatives. Here, how is this situation not a near-facsimile of the capitalization example on the policy page? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. Here's my opinion. The examples do not use the same phrase. One uses "Pulp Fiction"; the other uses "Red Meat". Different phrases have different meanings and can have different degrees of confusion among people who are searching for something. But that's just my opinion, just as it's your opinion that you "do not see a difference". So here we are, having a consensus discussion about whether this particular article (not every article; not everything in which you might "not see a difference", unless you have some hard data about whether most people see it your way) should be titled, with different opinions being expressed. Shall we wait and see whether other opinions are expressed? I certainly think that's the way to go. Cresix (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When the phrases "red meat" and "pulp fiction" are used in writing, they are presented in lowercase. You made the argument that some people would naturally search in title case even for all-lowercase phrases, and I can understand that stance. Are you arguing now that people would recall "pulp fiction" as "Pulp Fiction" and search in title case based on that recollection? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing now that people would not recall "pulp fiction" as "Pulp Fiction" and not search in title case based on not having that recollection? Cresix (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I do not like using capitalisation for disambiguation. It is confusing and unnecessary. I, for one, regularly type terms into the search box using all small letters (or occasionally all caps) and I don't want my results to be influenced by that fact. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you type all in small letters or caps, you would be taken to pulp fiction, which would not be the film article, in either arrangement. If the move takes place, and you specifically type the title case ("Pulp Fiction"), it would take you to the film article Pulp Fiction. To use a current example, try searching for "panic room" or "PANIC ROOM", and you will get to the article about the room. If you search for "Panic Room" specifically, you will get to the article about the film. Your results will only be influenced if you search using the title case. We include hatnotes to fill any gaps, but the distinction helps direct readers to where they most likely want to go. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since every opinion opposed to the change seems to always be followed by challenges (it apparently isn't permissible to simply express an opinion and leave it at that), I think we should allow Amakura to clarify what he/she meant, if he/she chooses to do so. Perhaps (and I make no assumptions, I could be wrong) Amakuru prefers going to a dab page rather than the film page. But I don't won't to put words in Amakuru's mouth, nor do I wish to try to force Amakuru to have to parse and defend every letter of every word in his response, and I hope no one else tries to do that either. Now, let's see what kind of challenge is presented to Powers who just expressed opposition below. Cresix (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Genres are often capitalized, so I think the genre is still the primary topic for "Pulp Fiction" as well as for "pulp fiction".  Powers T 22:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Capitalised where? They aren't something that we would capitalise her on Wikipedia. PC78 (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to speak for Powers, and I'll ask him to correct me as needed, but it seems fairly obvious to me that what is meant is that when people are writing or typing, they often capitalize genres. I don't believe Powers is referring to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines for capitalization. That is certainly somethiing that I agree with. In fact, I think it's quite likely that the average Wikipedia reader has little to no knowledge of Wikipedia's capitalization conventions and thus is unlikely to use them when searching. Let's please try to keep in mind that Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is written for readers, not editors. Just because editors know something doesn't mean that most readers know it. Many people are accustomed to capitalizing every word of a genre when they write or type it, so such a person, in searching for something related to the genre might be likely to type "Pulp Fiction". Cresix (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would people capitalise a genre (specifically, as opposed to any other word)? In any case, that wouldn't make something the primary topic. PC78 (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make as to why people would capitalize a genre or whether it conforms to Wikipedia's rules when someone is searching for information? The point being made is that they do, not why they do it. Maybe they do it because they think it makes sense. Maybe they do it because their high school English teacher told them they had to. Maybe they do it because they saw it capitalized in a book. That's irrelevant. And whether it makes something a "primary topic" or not, if it's what most people do, then it's what is best for the reader. Are we here to rigidly follow rules, or are we trying to write an encyclopedia that is convenient for the reader? I think the overarching principle behind WP:IAR and Wikipedia in general is to create an encyclopedia that is accessible and easy for readers to use, not to provide editors a battleground for fighting for their favorite rules at all costs. But that's just my opinion. And in a consensus discussion the weight of opinions determines consensus. Cresix (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is bollocks. We shouldn't be catering for people who write Every Word With A Capital Letter, or those who write IN ALL CAPS. We have a policy which allows for disambiguation by capitalisation, a policy which reflects community concensus. Such opposition here (and in other requested moves) basically amounts to "I don't like it". Yes, IAR is a policy too, but it is most certainly not a carte blance to ignore those rules that you don't agree with. PC78 (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is catering to anyone. We are trying to write an encyclopedia that is convenient for the most readers. And you have no idea whether someone "likes it". In fact, Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite films, and I consider this article to be one of the best film articles on Wikipedia. As one reader (among millions) I would be perfectly happy if I ended up on this page if I typed anything remotely resembling "pulp fiction", but that's not what's best for people who care nothing about the film. It could just as easily be argued that "I don't like it" is how you feel about the article's current title. It might help this discussion to go a little more smoothly if you could assume good faith instead of assuming that anyone who disagrees with your opinion has ulterior motives. And let me repeat myself again: The "policy" (your bold letters) allows for flexibility and uses the phrase "As a general rule". Any consensus here is perfectly within the parameters of that policy. Cresix (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amakuru and the fact that normal title case for the English language, outside of Wikipedia, actually capitalizes words. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I just corrected the 10 instances where a mainspace article linked to Pulp Fiction (all intended to link to the film). So there is currently no links on the mainspace that points directly to Pulp Fiction. Also note, only 9 articles link to the disambiguation page Pulp fiction. - Kollision (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep repeating myself, but links are made by editors. We are writing this encyclopedia for the readers. There is no reason to think that most readers write like editors; in fact, I seriously doubt that they do. Cresix (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Leaving aside whether WP:PRECISION applies (I believe it does), and assuming for the sake of argument that "Pulp Fiction" and "pulp fiction" are identical, the film is clearly the primary topic with 156,611 pageviews in September, compared to 47,000 for pulp fiction and pulp magazine combined and 34,000 for Pulp Fiction (soundtrack). So even by that standard the film should be at Pulp Fiction and the genre, if it wasn't already at a properly unambiguous title, should hypothetically be at pulp fiction (genre). Station1 (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification and disclosure I am not proposing anything beyond what I originally stated, so the disambiguation page at pulp fiction would be left alone: the result from searching in lowercase for "pulp fiction" would remain unaffected either way. This request is a modified version of the previous request I made Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 22 (from June 12), which suggested that the titlecased Pulp Fiction be redirected to its primary topic, and it enjoyed majority support. Building on that, the current modified suggestion now also makes sense from a WP:PRECISION point of view. Precedent examples include Ghost story vs Ghost Story, Quid Pro Quo vs Quid pro quo, etc. --Bxj (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for the outcome of that redirect discussion, we don't count majorities; we evaluate consensus. The closer came to the correct conclusion in that case, irrespective of the 5-4 count of raw numbers.  Powers T 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The last two opposed were IP addresses. --Bxj (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, anon IPs' opinions are given equal weight as other users, especially if the IPs are not SPAs, and these were not. I don't believe that IPs have been demoted since that discussion occurred. Cresix (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think there may have been a removal from Wikipedia of the policy of not counting IP address votes that I didn't notice. So, I see that you're of the opinion that people who search for the genre would search by capitalizing the term. Most people who supported this move probably didn't see a conflict between the two casings, and didn't see this as a conflict between people over 50 versus pop culture fanatics, but from an NPOV view regarding Wikipedia policy on disambiguation. --Bxj (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me state a couple of points clearly because you seem to be confused. First, the discussion to which you refer was closed (appropriately) with "no consensus", regardless of what you interpret as "most people supported". As Powers pointed out, consensus does not consist of majority rule. And second point, there has never been a "policy of not counting IP address votes"; you suggest that there was such a policy that was removed; this is completely unfounded. I completely fail to get the point you're trying to make. Cresix (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody was ever confused about the fact that the previous discussion had majority support and no consensus ruling, but I appreciate the fact, I suppose, that you attempted to clarify this for me here, although it is a little confusing as to why you thought this wouldn't be clear to anyone or that you thought I was confused. I thank you anyway for your clarification of my earlier clarification, even though it seemed there was nothing that was unclear before you wrote the reply. To go back to your main arguments, they are: (1) people are more likely to search for "Pulp Fiction," capitalized, when searching for the lowercased genre, not the movie, (2) WP:PRECISION doesn't apply here, and (3) this is about a conflict between people over 50 versus younger pop culture fans. I respect your right to these views, but I think you're done stating your primary reasons to the oppose. --Bxj (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have misrepresented my views. Please strike them in your edit; in fact, I demand it. Don't ask me how you misrepresented them; they're my views; I can speak for myself. Anyone interested in my views can read all of my comments in this section.
 * Your repeated comments about "majority support" might be confusing to editors who don't understand that consensus is not "majority support". The discussion to which you referred was closed with no consensus. As for the other confusing part of your edit, let me repeat an exact quote from one of your edits above: "I think there may have been a removal from Wikipedia of the policy of not counting IP address votes". There was NEVER a policy of not counting IP votes. Never.
 * Once again, please strike your summary of my opinions. Cresix (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * <I>"Please strike them in your edit; in fact, I demand it."</I> I am striking out my previous comment per your request, and also as a final interaction with you in this talk section. Cresix, there are many things we just simply disagree on. My initial intention was to make a short comment as a disclosure of facts relevant to the discussion. Ideally, only a few edits would be needed to summarize each user's opinion, not 25 edits in the edit history. --Bxj (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2010
 * Let me suggest that you ask an editor on his/her talk page before presuming to speak for that editor. You can avoid a lot of problems that way, including misrepresenting that person's opinions. Having "25 edits in the edit history" is far better than such a mispresentation. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment "Bad Ass Mother Fucker" redirects here. i have not seen the film. is there a character with this name, should they have a listing, and if not should the redirect be removed, esp. if the article itself is moved? currently this phrase is not given an article or article section on WP, and BAMF (disambiguation) is widely used as a form of stealth vandalism, as people assume it stands for something which it doesnt.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have to delete redirects at the time of article moves, so it's kinda off topic. Redirects for discussion is usually where that topic would be brought up by someone familiar with the subject. --Bxj (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. Disambiguating by the capitalization of one character is not enough. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Yes, there is some percentage minority who will type in title case for no purpose but most people will not, regardless of age (and there will also be people searching for the film who will fail to type in title case despite it being a proper noun). This leaves us with most people typing in title case landing at the topic they intended and most people typing in lowercase landing at the topic they intended. These pools of random-capitalizers and proper-noun-ignorers will be inconvenienced by having to click twice but no one has provided any good reason other than assertion why they think those looking for the genre are especially prone to stray from normal capitalization convention such that they will not be a small minority.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose disambiguating by the capitalisation of only one letter.  —   AjaxSmack   04:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't particularly like disambiguating different articles with the same spelling and only capitalization to distinguish them and I don't think it would be best here. Captain   panda  05:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to say distinguishing, not disambiguating. There will still be a disambiguation page either way. --Bxj (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither you nor I can speak for Captain panda, but it is quite possible that he/she means that he/she does not wish to have to worry about capitalization to get to the disambiguation page. Cresix (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I think many are missing the sheer brilliance of this request.  First, nothing changes for anyone searching for "pulp fiction" or even "Pulp fiction" - they are still taken to the dab page at Pulp fiction.  The only effect of this move is that someone who searches specifically for "Pulp Fiction" will be taken to this article instead of to the dab page to which Pulp Fiction currently redirects.  Now, how many people who bother to capitalize the F as well as the P are not looking for the film?  I suggest less than 1%.  So, this definitely improves Wikipedia for all those readers. Second, I don't understand the objections to disambiguating by the capitalization of one letter, unless it's just matter of I just don't like it, which should not be given serious consideration.  I mean, what are the practical problems with disambiguating like that? I see only advantages for our readers. Finally, the evidence that the film is the primary topic appears to be strong anyway.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No one missed any "sheer brilliance", Born2cycle. Being opposed to the change does not mean we are feebleminded. Those of us opposed fully understand about the capitalization issue. As for your comment about I just don't like it, I'll repeat what I stated above to PC78: "you have no idea whether someone 'likes it'. In fact, Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite films, and I consider this article to be one of the best film articles on Wikipedia. As one reader (among millions) I would be perfectly happy if I ended up on this page if I typed anything remotely resembling 'pulp fiction', but that's not what's best for people who care nothing about the film. It could just as easily be argued that 'I don't like it' is how you feel about the article's current title". Believe it or not, those of us who oppose the change actually do not have an ulterior motive. We really think it's best for the majority of readers to leave it like it is. Your opinions about 1% not looking for the film are welcome here, but let's be aware that it's your opinion, and a lot of people in this discussion have different opinions. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not following. Of the people who capitalize the F as well as the P when searching for Pulp Fiction, in your opinion approximately what percentage are looking for something other than the film? Further, on what grounds do you think it's best "for the majority of readers to leave it like it is", and what in particular do page view count statistics tell you about this?  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read all of your comments here, and I'm still not following. I see that you assert an opinion that most people who type in Pulp Fiction are not looking for the film, multiple times, but never with any basis or explanation.  You also apparently have no response to Station1's argument based on page view statistics.  I'm not sure about others who oppose this move, but characterizing yours as being ultimately about I just don't like it seems even more apt after I've read all your comments.  There's simply nothing else there.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read all of the previous discussion in this debate? Much of this is addressed above. I can't give an exact percentage, nor can you. I don't have "page view count statistics" to support one posiiton or the other, nor do you. Either way, if more people view Pulp Fiction the film than any other article related to "pulp fiction", that doesn't mean that more people who enter "Pulp Fiction" to search eventually end up only at the film article. People who search often have to go to several articles to find the one they want. And page view counts don't distinguish between views by editors and views by readers; Wikipedia is written for the convenience of readers, not editors. My opinion is that most people who enter "Pulp Fiction" are not looking for the film. There are many people who are not Tarantino fans, who know little or nothing about the film, and who think of Pulp Fiction (capitalized as a genre) as the genre of pulp fiction, not the film. Do you have specific statistics (and please, no Google hits; that's irrelevant to what Wikipedia readers are looking for) to support that most readers (not editors) are specifically looking for the film when they enter "Pulp Fiction"? But beyond the statstics, please don't assume that those of us who oppose the change do so because we "don't like it". That's assuming bad faith. You can't read my or anyone's mind. Cresix (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Acting in good faith does not preclude one from being in denial about their ultimate motivation being that they just don't like it. If nothing else, humans are masters at rationalization, including rationalization done in perfectly good faith.  Rationalization in good faith is often manifested by an inability or refusal to answer pointed questions, obfuscation, various expressions of frustration, accusation of AGF violations, changing reasoning but not position when original reasoning is shown to be faulty, etc.  Perhaps that's not what's going on here, but it sure appears that way.  In case I'm wrong, let's try again. The stats cited by Station1 are: "the film is clearly the primary topic with 156,611 pageviews in September, compared to 47,000 for pulp fiction and pulp magazine combined and 34,000 for Pulp Fiction (soundtrack)".  In addition, Pulp magazine got a total of only 23,571 views in September.  So the article about the film is getting almost seven times as many views as is the genre.  To discount the significance of this is to disregard the reasoning used in countless other decisions about primary topic and article title. You ask for "no google hits", yet the google test is a tool used frequently  in determining primary topic.    Here again you're disregarding the reasoning used in countless other decisions about primary topic and article title. You say we can't look at WP:GOOGLE or page view statistics, repeat your baseless opinion that "most people who enter "Pulp Fiction" are not looking for the film, and have the gall to ask for specific statistics "that most readers (not editors) are specifically looking for the film when they enter "Pulp Fiction"". Like it or not, the google test and page view counts are legitimate means by which primary topic is determined in Wikipedia, especially when the numbers are as overwhelming as they are in this case.  They are specifically suggested as mechanisms to determine primary topic at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  Typically when one method indicates one thing, and another indicates another, the reasonable conclusion is there is no clear primary topic.  But that's not the case here.  Here, all signs point... the film being the primary topic. Please note that the reasoning in your arguments is not specific to Pulp Fiction.  For example, you note that "page view counts don't distinguish between views by editors and views by readers" as if that's particularly relevant here.  Why should it be any more relevant for this article than for any of the other countless cases in which page view counts were used to determine primary topic without distinguishing reader views from editor views?   As such, these arguments would be discounted as silly at best in most any move debate I've ever been involved in.  I have no idea why you think they might be persuasive here.  I can't even understand how they're persuasive to you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First, regarding your calling my edits (or anyone's edits) "silly at best", consider this your first warning about personal attacks. And I generally don't respond directly to an editor (except newcomers) when there is a second personal attack; I go straight to WP:ANI; so an absence of a response to you does not mean I have acquiesced to your personal attacks. Assuming that an editor who disagrees with you has an ulterior motive other than improving Wikipedia ("I just don't like it") is not assuming good faith. In response to your statement, "Perhaps that's not what's going on here": Finally, you said something I can agree with. In response to your strained use of statistics, please give me the statistics for number of page views of Pulp Fiction (film) by Wikipedia readers (not editors, and certainly not Google users) who initially typed anything other than "Pulp Fiction (film)" but were looking for the film article. That's the only definitive statistic here; the rest is just smoke and mirrors to try to bolster a case based on opinion when no statistics exist to support an argument one way or the other. I can confabulate all kinds of statistics based on how many Google hits or Wikipedia views I get for "pulp" vs. "Pulp", "Pulp Fiction" vs. "Pulp fiction", "pulp Fiction" vs. "pulp fiction", ad nauseum, but that is a complete waste of time because there are no good statistics here, just opinions. All of this has been covered earlier in this discussion if you wish to take a moment to read all of the discussion. Cresix (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First, a comment about an argument (being brilliant or silly or anything else) is not a personal reflection about the person that happens to be presenting that argument, and so cannot be a personal attack. Speaking of brilliant, apparently my referring to this proposal as "brilliant" you also took personally, since you oppose it.  That explains much.  Anyway, let this be your first warning that "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are considered to be forms of personal attack.  Please stop. You completely ignored my main point, that your arguments are not specific to this article, but could be applied to just about any article for which title is determined by page view counts, ghits, and primary topic criteria.  Then you repeated your argument ("the rest is just smoke and mirrors ").  Yet the argument obviously does not apply to all those other articles, since so many are named precisely according to the criteria to which you refer as "smoke and mirrors".  So, again, what is different about this article?  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Manure by any other name still stinks. Calling an edit "silly at best" is a personal attack on the editor who made the edit. If I call your good faith edits stupid or moronic, that is a personal attack against you, not your edit. My warning about personal attacks still stands. Please stop. I'm not applying my arguments to any article other than this article. As I've said previously (several times), this has been covered before. My opinion is that the majority of people who enter "Pulp Fiction" are not looking for the film article; I haven't said anything about terms or capitalization for any article other than this one. Once again, look at all the discussion above. And WP:PRECISION, which has been the basic argument for making the change, allows for flexibility in its application. I am arguing that that flexibility should be applied here, but not necessarily to any other article. Other editors here apparently agree with me. If I understand your position correctly, your opinion is different. So we have all expressed our opinions (in my case, about a dozen times in this entire section). I believe that I have repeated myself enough, so unless you or another editor produces a different line of reasoning, I'm finished. If I don't respond again, that means I don't believe you have produced a new line of reasoning that hasn't already been covered in this entire discussion. Cresix (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We agree you have repeated yourself enough, especially since each time you do it it is without explanation or substantiation. See below.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that you have repeated your opinions fewer times than I have because I have been discussing this thread longer than you. I agree that you have provided no more definitive statistics supporting your position than I have in supporting mine. I agree we have both expressed our opinions and only our opinions. Cresix (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary topic
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC defines primary topic as that topic which "is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box". There are three tools that are suggested there to be used for helping in determining whether a primary topic exists, and, if it does, what it is: Accordingly, Station1 has cited article traffic statistics as basis for the argument that the film is the primary topic: "the film is clearly the primary topic with 156,611 pageviews in September, compared to 47,000 for pulp fiction and pulp magazine combined and 34,000 for Pulp Fiction (soundtrack)". In addition, Pulp magazine got a total of only 23,571 views in September. So the article about the film is getting almost seven times as many views as is the genre.
 * Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
 * Wikipedia article traffic statistics
 * Google web, news, scholar, or book searches.

But Cresix dismisses all this, and use of the google test, as "smoke and mirrors". Cresix also dismisses the use of wikilinks for this purpose: "... links are made by editors. We are writing this encyclopedia for the readers. There is no reason to think that most readers write like editors; in fact, I seriously doubt that they do".

I have two comments to make/pose about this.


 * 1) Why are any of three tools suggested at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for determining primary topic, much less all of them, inappropriate to be used for this article in particular, and how can primary topic determination be determined otherwise?  I request that prior to dismissing use of these tools again, that Cresix either explain why this article is different, or concede that his objection is to the use of the tools is general and applies to all articles, and that he should take up this objection at the talk page for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  If he cannot do this, I request that the closing admin ignore all arguments predicated on the general dismissal of these tools.
 * 2) Cresix' entire argument, so far as I can tell, is based completely on the  oft-repeated opinion "that most people who enter "Pulp Fiction" are not looking for the film".  I'm sorry, but the three tools suggested for this purpose indicate that not only are people who enter "Pulp Fiction" in the search box looking for the film, but so are people who are typing "pulp fiction".  It might not be ideal evidence, but it's certainly much more evidence substantiating the opposing view than Cresix' view.  No evidence whatsoever has been presented supporting Cresix' position.  I submit that repeating the same baseless assertion over and over without any evidence supporting it whatsoever is disruptive, and I hereby request that Cresix cease doing this, and that the closing admin ignore Cresix' comments, unless such basis is provided.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Note I have declined a third opinion request. There are plenty of other editors participating in the poll immediately above, and there's no reason to "recruit" a neutral third party when multiple other editors are participating in this talk page. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Born2cycle's repeating the same baseless assertion without the definitive statistic of number of page views of "Pulp Fiction (film)" by Wikipedia readers who initially typed anything other than "Pulp Fiction (film)" but were looking for the film article is disruptive, and I hereby request that the closing admin ignore Born2cycle's comments as statements of fact and instead view them as statements of opinion, unless those statistics are provided. Let's see . . . I think I got the "hereby" legalism in there . . . I don't think I need to add a "heretofore" or "whereas" . . . Do I need to get that witnessed and notarized, or will the closing admin accept it as an unnotorized opinion? Cresix (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"A cultural watershed"? Not even close.
Whoever inserted that line is obviously partial to the film and has trouble with the definitions of both 'culture' and 'watershed'. Show me a credible reference -- such as a scholarly paper on cultural watersheds in the 20th century -- that supports this opinion.

Let's see: Beethoven's music as a whole was a cultural watershed, but even that was deemed such only years after his death. Marx's work as a theoritician as a whole was a cultural watershed. The creation of the UN was a cultural watershed. Tarantino's 1994 film was not a cultural watershed. At most, it was a major phenomenon that shook English-speaking popular culture, but its influence seems to dwindle less than two decades later. This calls for a correction in the lead. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 20:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Take the time to scroll down a little, and you will see the "watershed" comment sourced in the context of "other violent watershed films", so that part of your challenge for a "credible reference" was met before you removed the phrase (in this case, Roger Ebert; a widely respected film critic; you don't need someone with a Ph.D. who published in a peer-reviewed journal article for a reference about a film). The "cultural" term in "cultural watershed" is hardly disputable; you yourself used the phrase "major phenomenon that shook English-speaking popular culture". The idea that the film is a "cultural watershed" certainly is a matter of opinion for this or any other film; but in this case it is a sourced opinion from a very reputable source, which is perfectly acceptable in discussing critical reaction to a film. As such, it never should have been deleted without consensus here first. I am restoring it pending any consensus to remove it. Gregorik, you (and all of us) are certainly entitled to your opinion on this matter, and I even respect your right to be bold in removing the phrase, but now that the sourcing has been explained, let's please respect the consensus process and see what others think. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to ignore everything I said above about cultural watersheds. Siskel and Ebert say nothing about the film being a "cultural watershed" -- presumably because they know it would make them look dumb. As such, the rather bombastic claim in the lead still stands unreferenced, which is an indicator of POV. And yes, when an editor makes a bold claim that something is a cultural watershed, it takes more than a passing Ebert quote to back it up. I don't see a consensus either to leave it in the lead. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  21:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And you seem to be quibbling about semantics. Ebert described it among other "violent watershed films". The film is also a cultural phenomenon. I think you are splitting semantic hairs to insist that the specific phrase' "cultural watershed" be attributed to the source when the meaning is clear. To offer an admittedly simplistic analogy, if a source describes something as containing the color "red", and another source describes it as "having white stripes", do we insist that we must find a third source that describes it with the specific phrase "red with white stripes"? In any event, there is a plausible claim that the concept of the film being a "watershed" in "popular culture" has been sourced. So now we wait for the consensus process to decide whether the very specific phrase "cultural watershed" must be sourced. And that's fine with me; I respect consensus regardless of whether I agree with the outcome. So let's wait and see. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, Gregorik. I don't intend to edit war on this matter, and I'll ask you not to do so also. This is a legitimate content dispute; please wait for a consensus here before repeatedly reverting. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. So I guess we need a 3rd opinion. I'd just like to add that there is a world of difference between a cultural phenomenon and a popular cultural phenomenon. Pulp Fiction (and everything Tarantino) clearly belongs in the sphere of popular culture, simply because it lacks the gravity and significance to influence culture as a whole. It's not just semantics at all. These (culture & pop culture) are two different categories within anthropology, history and sociology. Labeling this crime comedy a "cultural" watershed discredits the entire article that follows. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Obviously I disagree with almost everything you've said, but we'll see what others think. We don't need a third opinion as in WP:3O; we just need more opinions in general. This article gets a fair amount of traffic, so I don't think that will be a problem if we give it some time. Let's see what happens before we escalate to formal dispute resolution. Usually the consensus process works well. Cresix (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What about a slight rephrasing of that statement in the lead to reference that critics (specifically) have referred to it as a watershed? Because as it's worded now it sounds like Wikipedia is calling it a watershed when the reality is that this is what others have said. If that makes any sense. Millahnna (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. A rewording like "Critics have referred to Pulp Fiction as a watershed in American cinema" would dissuade the perception that the lead was written by teenage fanboys. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  08:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think that's a good idea, if it's worded as Gregorik did immediately above. I'd say give this a couple more days to see if other opinions are expressed, then without objection make the change. BTW, I doubt that teenage fanboys have any idea what a "watershed" is :) . Cresix (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a cultural watershed
"Cultural watershed" is a perfectly good and clear summary of the well-sourced discussion of the film's cultural impact in the Influence and reputation section. The rewrite with "shook" was actually much more "bombastic" and "fanboy" in style. We do not need to preface general claims in the lede with superfluous "Critics say" caveats. If the sourcing of the main text is strong, we can and should make simple declarative statements in the lede.—DCGeist (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yours is a neat example of an arrogant disregard of an intelligent talk page discussion and whatever arguments were made in it. I'm replacing the line with the version that 3 of us, Millahnna, Cresix and me, seem to agree with: "Critics have referred to Pulp Fiction as a watershed in American cinema..." ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  20:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Watch your attitude. It is poor, and it has been poor from the very beginning, when you made an unprompted, unnecessary, and unfounded claim about another Wikipedian's "partiality." Focus on content, not contributors. The addition of superfluous verbiage is being reverted while this discussion continues.—DCGeist (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with DCGeist about Gregorik's attitude here. Gregorik, I am willing to discuss and compromise (as I indicated above, I could accept your compromise in wording if others can agree), but please focus on the content issues and not your accusations of "arrogance". And let me re-emphasize: My agreement with your wording was pending what others think. DCGeist has expressed an opinion. As I have already told you, don't edit war. Wait for consensus before making any further changes. Cresix (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's be blunt as it sometimes helps: DCGeist has not expressed an opinion, he made a sweeping statement without commenting on the culture vs popular culture argument, and simply reverted the near-consensual line as if he's entitled to do so. My point was that this is the exact attitude we should all avoid on WP. That's all. No, I'm not edit warring and willing to accept whatever the outcome is. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First, DCGeist expressed an opinion; it just happens to be one with which you disagree; that doesn't make it less of an opinion. Each of us has expressed opinions, you included. That's what this discussion is about, opinions. Your opinion is fine, but it is your opinion. Secondly, there was not a "near-consensual line". DCGeist wants it the way it was originally, as did I until I listened to Millahnna and decided a compromise might be possible. You originally expressed an opinion that was yours alone, then you decided that the compromise would be acceptable. That's not a "near consensus". We are still in the consensus process. And I won't accuse anyone directly of edit warring, but I think a look at the page's edit history will reveal who has made the most reverts in the middle of this consensus discussion. But for now, let's put the issue of edit warring aside. And please, Gregorik, no more personal comments about DCGeist or any other editor; you did not need to refer to his editing as "arrogant" to make your point. Comment on the issues only. Now, let's see how the consensus process develops. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. My apologies to DCGeist. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I really think it would be a good idea to just put "critics have described the film as a" before the "cultural watershed". It's a simple change that is 1) more accurate a summary of that portion of reception and 2) less likely to be interpreted as POV. Millahnna (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Millahnna. That may be how it plays out. But there is enough difference of opinion at this point that we need to see whether others have ideas about this. Cresix (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Millahnna on this. It would make a lot of sense to qualify "cultural watershed" in the lead with a phrase such as "described as..." or "widely regarded as being..." to defer such a strong declaration to its rightful authors rather than to the authors of the article. It doesn't dimish the meaning it's meant to convey but it does assuage concerns about accuracy of being described as such, especially since we should take no stance one way or the other on whether it is or isn't a cultural watershed. Is William Shakespeare the greatest writer in the English language? Maybe but whether he is or isn't is a debate better left for another venue besides an encylopedia that takes a neutral point of view. Is he widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language? Yes, he is. That's something that's easily verified and difficult to dispute. In the same way, disputing that Pulp Fiction is a cultural watershed is easier than disputing that it's widely considered as such. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, there seems to be consensus that a qualifier is called for. I've added a terse one that should meet that standard without weighing the passage down with too much uninformative verbiage.—DCGeist (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your version of a terse qualifier is not strong enough (obviously). ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  21:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Obviously"? Obviously, you are wrong. It is no weaker than "described as" or "widely regarded as being", has the same informational value, and is more concise. Your version of an analysis is not strong enough to credit.—DCGeist (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't backlash please. The matter is resolved, thanks for the attention. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Gregorik, if you don't want a response, don't make a statement. You criticized DCGeist's change; he responded; and his response was before any of the comments below were made. Now please drop it and move on. There are much more important things to do than bicker. Cresix (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  11:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DCGeist's change. I also believe it expresses the sentiment of Big Bird's and Millahnna's comments (I see no difference between "described as ..." and "considered a ..."). It shifts the emphasis from what the film "is" to an emphasis on how critics have described it. So unless Big Bird or Millahnna objects, or another contrary opinion is expressed, it seems that the consensus is to accept the change made by DCGeist. Cresix (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I find DCGeist's qualifier completely satisfactory with regards to this issue. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm good with the change. Millahnna (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Narrative sections
The article lists seven narrative sections, a few of them with various subsections. Certain of these narrative sections are clearly delineated in the film with title cards, but others (the prelude sections) are not. It would help if the article stated where/when the prelude sections are taking place, to resolve any confusion. 66.57.42.103 (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WTF? The article explains that precisely in the Narrative structure section and represents it visually via font size in the Plot section.—DCGeist (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Kill Bill reference
Uma mentions at one point that she was to play a character that was supposadly the most deady woman in the world with a knife, but the show fell through. I suppose that this is referenced in Kill Bill then? A footnote required on either of the pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.18.5 (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not without a reliable source. Cresix (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bonnie Situation
Does anyone think 'The Bonnie Situation' is another way of saying 'A Fine Mess' or 'A Pretty State of Affairs' - in effect, giving two meanings to the word Bonnie? The Oriffice (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting an addition to the article (and if so, please provide a reliable source that this was Tarantino's intention), or are you just discussing your impressions of the film (and if so, it is inappropriate for this talk page)? Cresix (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So is that a yes or a no? Or dnot you udnretsnad the cocnpet of qeutsnois and asnwers? I was half expecting a 'yeah, that's a given' answer, and depending on the feedback I got, it may have been a worthwhile note to add to the article - but, hey, your righteous superior dribblings brightens my evening all the better. The Oriffice (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



FAC withdrawn
My attempt to nominate the article for FAC has been withdrawn, given that I am neither a regular contributor to this article, nor did I consult the editors who were. Well, let me do that now. Do any editors think this article merits a Featured Article, or Good Article nomination? Ilov90210 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mistake made in discussion about the weapon used in the Vincent Vega killing
Not just here,but all over the web,people seem to believe that the submachine gun found and used by Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) to kill Vincent Vega(John Travolta) while he is on the toilet in Butch's apartment is a Czech Vz61 "Skorpion".Vz.61 This is incorrect. The weapon used looks more like an Ingram MAC 10/11 .Mac 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.143.68 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, you need to provide a reliable source that refers specifically to the weapon in the film, not just your opinion about what it "looks more like". Secondly, the links above don't work. Cresix (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They do now. GRAPPLE   X  23:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's definitely either a MAC-10 or MAC-11 with the two-stage suppressor accessory, and it's definitely not a Vz.61. The script called for a Vz.61 but clearly, the prop doesn't match the script. The firearm appearing in the film has a magazine inside the pistol grip for a start, which clearly rules out the Vz.61. I doubt you'll find a source that can attest to that other than online forums for movie trivia and firearm enthusiasts though. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at it more closely, the firearm prop in the film is a MAC-10, not a MAC-11. The presence of the ridge along the sheet metal body identifies it as a MAC-10 (see the prop and compare a MAC-10 vs a MAC-11). The film itself is a source of the type of firearm used, so if the article needs to mention it at all, it should say the prop that appears is a MAC-10, and maybe include a note that the script actually called for a Vz.61. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why hide it in a reference in the footnotes and not correct the error in the article itself? Have it say something like "...pulverized by a Czech M61 submachine gun [Brookers misidentifies the weapon as a Czech-made Vz.61 Skorpion, as the script calls for, the actual screen weapon used is a MAC-10]" and then continue on?User7355608 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat irrelevant now, as the summary has been distilled down to "Returning to his apartment to retrieve it, he notices a submachine gun on the kitchen counter and hears the toilet flush. When Vincent exits the bathroom, Butch shoots him dead and departs" and makes no mention of the type of gun, or type of bread. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

NY Daily News mentions it. It is also mentioned in a footnote - Pulp_Fiction - though the footnote is not sourced. What Tarantino wrote in the script was "What he sees is a small compact Czech M61 submachine gun with a huge silencer on it, lying on his kitchen counter".  SilkTork  *Tea time 16:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC) It's not bread, but a pair of Pop-Tarts, which Butch takes from the package, unwraps from the foil and places in the toaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.33.46.98 (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Another, admittedly small, mistake: "the (forgotten) toaster ejects the bread, making a sudden noise which causes Butch to pull the trigger and hit Vincent with a burst of fire, killing him."

Raped/sodomized
In this text: "Maynard is joined by Zed (Peter Greene); they take Marsellus to another room to rape him, leaving a silent masked figure referred to as 'the gimp' to watch a tied-up Butch. Butch breaks loose and knocks out the gimp. He is about to flee when he decides to save Marsellus. As Zed is raping Marsellus on a pommel horse, Butch kills Maynard with a katana. Marsellus retrieves Maynard's shotgun and shoots Zed in the groin. Marsellus informs Butch that they are even with respect to the botched fight fix, so long as he never tells anyone about the rape and departs Los Angeles forever."

It's repetitive to use the word "rape" three times in one paragraph. So I varied the wording and made it more precise by changing it to "As Zed is sodomizing Marsellus on a pommel horse". And it is precise. There is no ambiguity of the act being performed. See the film, e.g. on Youtube. If you dispute that, you must also dispute there was any rape at all. Please have an excellent rationale if you want to revert this again. Barsoomian (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, you convinced me. I won't change "sodomizing". Cresix (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool. I noticed someone briefly reverted it on the grounds that "sodomize" doesn't imply "rape". However, as we still say that he was raped twice, that is already clear. Barsoomian (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox gross
According to the infobox templates' documentation, "Insert the worldwide gross revenue accrued by the film. This information is available for most pictures at Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers. If worldwide gross is not available, then indicate which region has grossed that amount." The worldwide gross is sufficient for the infobox. We shouldn't use the term "domestic" anyway as this isn't the American Wikipedia, so what does "domestic" mean? What about the international gross? Why not include that too? You can include a box office summary table in the box office section, like this, if the distinction from 'domestic' and 'international' is important. The infoboxes are already bloated. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   04:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Use the worldwide gross only. There infobox is not the place to try and place undue weight on the U.S. box office for the film, especially since "Domestic" is different depending on where you live. Total gross in the infobox, and let the box office section of the article break it down from there.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope.Disagree. North American box office gross is the standard reported figure in the plurality of the Anglophile world that English-language Wikipedia serves. Check several high-quality sources and get back to me on that, if you actually wish to disagree on an evidentiary basis. The infobox "guideline" is what it is, and what it is ain't no good. Anyone who knows cinema journalism knows that to be true. And unless you forge an opposite consensus here, we'll continue to do things better and more informatively on the Pulp Fiction page.—DCGeist (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus has already been established which is how the guideline was born. You alone don't equal consensus.  No one is deleting valued information, the information is already in prose.  This is the English Wikipedia, you are correct, but not the American Wikipedia, so "domestic" is meaningless.  If the infobox guideline is "no good" take it to the talk page, but don't use an article to push your point of view (that others obviously don't share).  Thank you. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   05:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So, basically what you are saying is that somehow the U.S. box office is more important than any other box office gross, as far as the infobox is concerned? Wow, how American-centric you are. Glad to see that this changed to the American Wikipedia from its originally established "ENGLISH" Wikipedia. Regardless, not only does the infobox itself say different, but even WP:MOSFILM states not to use terminology like "domestic". As I said, that means something different to different readers and you cannot say "it's a standard" because the average reader is not a cinema journalist. They're just an average reader. As for even breaking it down by "U.S." and "Worldwide", again you're showing bias to the U.S. market in the infobox. Considering the film premiered in Cannes, which is not in the U.S., there isn't even a presidence for that. Matter of fact, the film premiered all over the world EXCEPT for the U.S. . for about 5 months. As for consensus being "changed" here....well, that depends on how you consider consensus. If it's based on weight of argument, then I would say that that favors those who want to limit it to just WorldWide, because there are guidelines and policies (if you include NPOV, which I do) that say otherwise. You don't really have a significant argument to ignore the rules in this case. If it's based on numerical opinions, then that again favors the removal. So, what exactly are your criteria to "change consensus" on this page?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the point of having just the worldwide box office gross is to ensure the universality of the overview of the topic. We then break everything down in the article body. While it seems that the American gross is noteworthy here, $100M for an independent film, it helps to have context for that. It seems better to take a global approach with the infobox and to note the American milestone in the lead section. I'm surprised that the lead section lacks any box office information, especially with the milestone being a great highlight to include with context. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's amusing how he tells you to "take it to talk page" and then ignore everything editors have to say. As what Erik is saying, the significance should be noted in the lead, not stuffed in the infobox with no context.  Why is that so hard to comprehend? —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   22:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The infobox should ideally only include information that will be of interest to all English-speaking readers, and there is a substantial portion of readers who the US gross holds no significance for. As other editors point out, national box office breakdowns can be covered in the appropriate sections. The point of incuding the worldwide gross and the budget is to give an indication of the relative financial success, and the US total has no bearing on that.  The general view in this discussion is to adhere to the guidelines, and a valid reason why the US gross is of sufficient prominence hasn't been put forward. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Gold Watch prelude
The info about hiding the gold watch in his ass for two years at a POW camp is incorrect, it is actually five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.58.53 (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The boy's father hid it for five years; the Christopher Walken character, two.138.162.140.55 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It says five years, which is incorrect. It's two years for Koons. Someone needs to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.174.250 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. —Flax5 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Gimp
It is believed that The Gimp was a Kalashikov aficionado from Nevada whose real name is "Ryan". He was originally lured into the basement of a perverted millionaire, who later exchanged Ryan for a really nice blender at the pawn shop.


 * Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiltonted (talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Spelling error
"defended, mystified, male interiority" shouldn't this be "defended, mystified, male inferiority"?


 * Absolutely not. Read the sentence carefully, in context, and you'll understand what the critic is getting at.—DCGeist (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by Let Me Eat Cake
Per WP:BRD, it is time for a discussion of the large-scale changes made by Let Me Eat Cake. I have no problem with the edits suggested in the GA Review, but these recent edits went well beyond that. The failure to use descriptive edit summaries made matters worse, because no one had any idea what he was doing or why, or that GAR had anything to do with it. So, time for Let Me Eat Cake to offer an explanation, please. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 20:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, don't be so shocked. The edits weren't that surprising. I was trying to get the article passed so I modeled the lead after the Inglourious Basterds one as that is a GA. It is important talk about its production, box office gross etc. I'm so sorry I offended you. So there's my explanation Dad.

Text of Jules's Bible speech
In the published edition of the Pulp Fiction screenplay, the word is "inequities" rather than "iniquities." I realize that "iniquities" is the correct word in the context of the speech, but the script, as well as Jackson's pronunciation in the film itself, indicate that "inequities" was the word intended. Alexiskai (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That is interesting. It is kind of difficult to tell what he said in the film, but I am curious why Tarantino changed it in the script.  It definitely changes the meaning. --- The Old Jacobite <sub style="font-family:Courier New; color:#006600;">The '45  22:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It may simply indicate a malapropism. He does deliver the speech two different ways, so it's clear he's not reciting it verbatim each time. And of course, we never know whether the character is meant to have learned the speech from an in-universe version of Ezekiel or from watching Karate Kiba one too many times. :) Alexiskai (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Those are all good points. --- The Old Jacobite <sub style="font-family:Courier New; color:#006600;">The '45  01:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion about this text. I suggest an addition to the section on this part of the film. In Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), the film makes an homage to this piece of Samuel L. Jackson's film history. The tombstone of Jackson's character, Nick Fury, at the film's conclusion includes the epitaph "The path of the righteous man..." and "Ezekiel 25:17" below it. Of course, that is from the part of the quote that is NOT actually found in Ezekiel. noahblammo (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We would need a reliable source discussing this. Your assumption is that the Captain America film is quoting Pulp Fiction. Tarantino, however, is widely known for quoting/alluding to other works. If Tarantino quoted this from another source, it is entirely possible that Captain America quotes that same source. In any case, discussing it in the article without an independent reliable source is original research. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Stability in this article
It's nice to see that this article has stabilized since a certain individual stopped changing and challenging all posts by all editors. I don't know what became of that individual, but it's nice to see that others can have a voice in this article (and other articles) without it becoming one editor's personal vision of the movie. CurtisJohnson (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Careful friend. That is borderline a Personal Attack. Just a polite pointer. MisterShiney    ✉    07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your warning is well taken, MisterShiney.CurtisJohnson (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Include Sight and Sound Ranking
Motion to add Pulp Fiction's ranking on the 2012 Sight and Sound poll, where it was tied for 127th best film of all time. http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/critics/ 72.11.54.147 (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, is that notable enough? 127th is is not that high.... MisterShiney    ✉    23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the article is already blessed with such a wealth of material that the positive value of this data point is outweighed by its overall dilutive effect. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mexican Standoff
I added back the reference to a Mexican standoff which had been in the article since at least October 2006, removing edit of 09:09, 19 March 2013. Although the situation in the movie might not be a strict Mexican standoff as originally defined, it certainly falls within the general understanding and 'popular use' of Mexican standoff. Pulp Fiction is further cited as an example on the Mexican standoff page. –&#32;Mark K Adams (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 21:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I endorse your reversions made this evening. In fact, you beat me to it by just a few minutes –&#32;

So what if the Mexican Standoff article refers to Pulp Fiction? Wikipedia articles are not the source other articles should use. Additionally, the Mexican Standoff article has NO sources of its own. There are two links, but BOTH of them are dead. Cortador (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Cortador for bringing attention to the Mexican standoff article. I've done a little to clean up the links, and put my thoughts toward its improvement on its Talk page.  Understand that even without reference to the Mexican standoff Wikipedia article, the Wikipedia community has accepted that the scenario in Pulp Fiction is indeed a Mexican standoff as it has been in place since at least October 2006.


 * Further, though you are criticizing the lack of references in the Mexican standoff article, you are not offering any to support your view of it. If you can find convincing evidence for the strict definition that you espouse, you may wish to revisit changing the accepted understanding of the term.  But before you do, try a Google Image Search.  You will see there are many variations which may all be described as a "Mexican standoff." –&#32;Mark K Adams (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving the Mexican Standoff article some attention. However, "Wikipedia authors say" or "Google image search" are not valid sources. And a many of the images from your link show only two people, which fist no definition of MS I've seen so far. Others make it unclear which sides are allied etc.


 * But I see where you are going and simply typed "mexican standoff definition" into Google. The very first hit and others, like these three:


 * http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mexican-standoff
 * https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/Mexican%20standoff
 * http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/MEXICANSTANDOFF


 * describe the MS as a situation where nobody can emerge as the clear winner. This includes the sources of the MS article (The Word Detective), which says: "A “Mexican standoff,” however, is a complete stalemate, and both sides lose by being forced to walk away without a victory."


 * That's absolutely not the case in Pulp Fiction. Vincent (or Jules, for that matter) can safely shot "Honey Bunny" and thus he and Jules emerge as winners. Sure, they lose in the sense that Jules does not WANT anybody dead, but that's not the point, because Vincent does not seem to have a problem with killing Honey Bunny.


 * If you disagree here (which you have every right to), please provide sources that fit a different definition of MS. On-line sources are fine, but as I see it, they do not agree that the scene in PF is a MS. — Cortador (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In the strictest dictionary sense of the definition, you are correct. But "Mexican standoff" is a colloquialism which offers some wiggle room.  The point of the use of the term in the Pulp Fiction article is not to nail down the semantics of the term "Mexican standoff", but rather to provide an understanding of the scene for those who are unfamiliar with it.  If you Google "mexican standoff pulp fiction" you will see that the online world at large has an understanding that the scene in question is a Mexican standoff.  And though a Google search itself can not be used as a cited source, the webpages that result in said search can be.  When the internet community overwhelmingly agrees on something, it creates consensus. –&#32;Mark K Adams (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but what kind of sources is "the internet says"? Look at TV Tropes, for example: They got it wrong and claim that both the hitmen and the robbers are pointing guns at each other, which is not correct.


 * Anyway, I deleted Pulp Fiction as an example from the MS page, as the article itself precisely states that "neither side has an advantage", which is not the case in PF. "The internet" or not, an article should not contain contradictory information. Feel free to include that MS is also a term for a "vaguely defined situation with more than two people pointing guns at one another" if you have a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.113.16 (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Steve Buscemi?
Why isn't Steve Buscemi credited in this article as the 'Buddy Holly' waiter? Soulrefrain (Talk) 17:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Sincerely, — Gareth Griffith-Jones  &#124;The Welsh  Buzzard'' &#124; — 18:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 07:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you regard the role significant enough? Please expand.
 * It's a very minor role but he is still credited in the film regardless. I can see that the cast section has a short description for each character and Buscemi's role does not warrant one. Inserting a one-liner for him would be out of place. My apologies. Soulrefrain (Talk) 06:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Soulrefrain (Talk), I appreciate your replying. All the best! –&#32;

Black comedy in lede
I removed black comedy from the first line of the lede. Pulp Fiction is primarily a crime film, and this is the genre that should take precedence in the lede. Black comedy is mentioned further down in the lede, with references, and it is clear that this is a minority view, not held by a wide variety of critics. It should be mentioned in the lede, but I do not think it should be in the first line. I welcome comments from other editors. --- The Old Jacobite <sub style="font-family:Courier New; color:#006600;">The '45  13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's primarily an over-the-top parody of pulp magazine stories, and there are also sources if you need them everywhere: Roger Ebert, BBC, LA Times, and About.com... geez, what do you have against black comedy? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you keep your stupid personal comments to yourself?
 * I stated my reasons clearly above, which you have not refuted. I never said black comedy was not sourced, but that it is not the primary genre. --- The Old Jacobite <sub style="font-family:Courier New; color:#006600;">The '45  00:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you keep your personal attacks to yourself? This is not the first article where you have an issue with black comedy, so I asked an honest question. Black comedy is a vital part of what this movie is, and so it should be reinstated in its original context. And yes, I have refuted your statement, which was "primarily a crime film", by stating that it is "primarily an over-the-top parody", therefore comedy. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What personal attack? What I said in another article about a tv show is utterly irrelevant here, so your comment was inappropriate.  And, no, you did not refute my argument.  This is primarily considered a crime film, and certainly not a comedy of any sort. --- The Old Jacobite <sub style="font-family:Courier New; color:#006600;">The '45  13:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to have any sources to support that conclusion, would you? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the answer is no, that conclusion would be pure WP:SYN. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think the film is black comedy either, or any kind of comedy for that matter, and was surprised to see the lede say that. Merely having a few funny moments doesn't make a movie a comedy. 24.17.19.29 (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Tarantino said in an interview that Reservoir Dogs is a drama, but if he owned a video store, he'd put Pulp Fiction under comedy. TheRealBoognish (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So what? Tarantino's opinion isn't relevant.  Furthermore, as said above, if his opinion was relevant (and sourced), it still wouldn't be the primary genre. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;"> The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 22:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What OldJacobite said. While discussion from the creator are not ignorable, per WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE we need third party sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Selected for preservation
The film has been selected for preservation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/movies/library-of-congress-announces-2013-national-film-registry-selections/2013/12/17/eba98bce-6737-11e3-ae56-22de072140a2_story.html?tid=hpModule_ef3e52c4-8691-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394 --Matt723star (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Big Kahuna Burger
Why doesn't Big Kahuna Burger on this page link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Kahuna_Burger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman92 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)