Talk:Rear Window/Archive 1

Summary
I think this summary box is terrible and, what is more, in no way necessary. It is also displayed in a weird way as far as the layout of the entry is concerned. Is there any consensus to add such boxes to film articles?  11:20, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Can we add more on Jeff's Sexual Frustration? I made a small line in there, and would love to elaborate if someone can help me along. Mitch 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The POV talk should be moved to a different section. It doesn't have anything to do with the plot. DarkenedWings 02:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Short story title wrong
The short story it was based on isn't called 'Rear Window', it's called 'It Had to be Murder'. I've changed that now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.249.99 (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Merging Lisa Fremont into Rear Window

 * Agree Indeed, I think Lisa Fremont would (properly) disappear into this article. In its present state, it seems little more than an advertisment for some proposed game called Six Degrees of Lisa Fremont. Unless someone is devoted enough to this fictional character to develop a decent article out of her, I recommend merging. Gosgood 10:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Lisa Fremont page should be considered for deletion. It has no bearing on the film and does not belong there.  It seems nonsensical at best. Philbertgray 13:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per discussion at Articles for deletion/Lisa Fremont... Addhoc 15:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A lovely bit of POV
"The best analysis of Rear Window can be found in John Fawell's book The Well-Made Film." Erm, any citation available for this? Best is a tricky word. Cheers! (163.1.230.208 07:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Gracerear.jpg
Image:Gracerear.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rearwindowposter.jpg
Image:Rearwindowposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert Capa and Ingrid Bergman
Has this article contained a reference to the relationship between Capa and Bergman serving as the model for the characters in this film? The relationship is discussed on the Robert Capa page. Any objections to including a sourced reference here? TheMindsEye (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are there two plot summaries?
They are both quite good, but it seems odd that the article contains a plot summary >and< a synopsis, both essentially the same thing done in different ways. Someone may want to do radical surgery to merge the two. Invertzoo (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reversion not justified
Ed_Fitzgerald (talk · contribs) reverted legitimate changes without explanation. I just re-applied the changes, and await a discussion about why the changes should be reverted. Admittedly, the changes did affect multiple parts of the document, but they all seem legitimate to me and so what's needed is a more specific discussion about what subset of the changes are problematic. Thanks. 72.244.204.253 (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC).


 * Actually, once again, you have it exactly backwards. As I explained to you on the talk page of the previous IP address you used – User talk:67.100.127.36 – (both IPs Geolocate to Seattle, Washington, so there's no particular purpose in denying this was you), as an editor without any previous known history on Wikipedia (unless, of course, you'd like to let us know what other IP address, or accounts, you might have edited under), with no previous history of having edited this article, it's up to you to discuss any large-scale changes you plan to make on the article on the discussion page before you make them.  Then, if you go ahead and make the changes without having discussed them, and an established editor reverts them and asks you to talk about them, you're supposed to talk about them, not revert the reversion and complain about it. In other words, we don't take your changes as a fait accompli and are required to justify not keeping them to you,  you  discuss your proposed changes to  us , and we arrive at a consensus,  together , of what is to be done. I hope that's clear now - so, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and putting on my best WP:Assume good faith vest and trousers, I'll assume your purpose is not to screw around with us, but to make legitimate edits.  Therefore, let me ask ... why do you think these changes are an improvement to the article? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that my dynamically-assigned IP address bothers you; a side-effect of that is that I don't have a talk page to speak of, so in the future, consider raising your issues for IP-based contributors on the article's talk page instead. Your sense of ownership over the article violates policy (the "we" and "us" is particularly inappropriate since at the moment, it's just you and me), and your lack of willingness to explain your revert violates guidelines.  The article is of start class quality, not FA or even GA, so being bold should not be an issue. While I made the changes in good faith, and followed advice from the policy about WP:EP ("If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that."), I will highlight the changes anyway:
 * Intro changed: replaced WP:PEACOCK statements and trivia about the cameo and studio ownership with more traditional statements about recognition the film has received.
 * Plot summary: I shortened it, trying to get it a step closer to the plot summary policy (item 2 under WP:NOT)
 * Created new ownership section, a home for two ownership-related details already present
 * Combined redundant discussions about films and tv episodes influenced by the movie into a single section
 * Analysis section is not verifiable from the two general references it had, so I marked it as needing improvements.
 * Scattered minor other changes, which I'm happy to discuss if you raise them as issues here.
 * Since I think WP policies and guidelines support my actions, I'm accompanying this message with a second revert so that others can see my changes. I will, of course, not violate WP:3RR.  Looking forward to hearing about the article issues you have. 72.244.206.33 (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks for your reply. I'm just walking out the door to go to work, so I'll have some specific responses later on tonight. These few thoughts in the meantime: * I don't see any particular value in your trying to "turn the tables" and accusing me of having "ownership" issues (such a lovely, broad accusation) - let's keep focused here on the changes you'd like to make, and the proper procedure for making them, OK? * I assume that having a dynamic IP address is not your choice, so you can't be held responsible for that, but if you're planning on editing here on a continuing basis, wouldn't it be better to register and get a Wikipedia ID?  It would certainly make it easier to communicate with you.  After all, I'm only aware of your situation because I've followed up on it here, but most editors would assume that when they leave a message on an IP's talk page, they've taken a step towards solving a problem, not thrown their words into the aether.  If, for some reason, you don't want to register, but plan on editing on an continuing basis, that I think it's incumbent on you to follow up and check the talk pages of IP addresses you've previously edited under for any comments or warnings that may have been placed there that are directed at your editing.  Otherwise, there's no way to effectively communicate with you, except, as here, on the talk pages of articles, and that's not always appropriate. That's it for the moment, As I said, I'll have more later on.  Again, thanks for replying. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ed, as I've seen your ownership issues in other articles, it seems like a perfectly valid observation on the part of the IP editor. AFAIK, there is no special rule that requires IPs or anybody else for that matter to get approval on the talk page before making a change. You seem to be a little heavy-handed on the revert button, no reason not to discuss in detail before making a second revert, is there? Abato piscorum (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Abato: Thanks for your take on the situation. It probably would have been better if you had commented on the edits themselves rather than simply re-inserting them en masse and then coming here to insult me.  But, since I asked you not to comment on my talk page any more, I suppose you had to find somewhere to vent.  No matter -- I'll be back after dinner to make the specific comments I wrote about above. Best. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting comment for an editor who has yet to post on the edits themselves and who violated WP:3RR with these three reversions:
 * Reversion @ 02:43, 20 October 2008
 * Reversion @ 06:48, 20 October 2008
 * Reversion @ 12:37, 20 October 2008
 * 72.244.204.2 (talk) (formerly known as 72.244.206.33, etc.) 02:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been delayed in commenting on your edits. It seems someone has been kind of Wikistalking my edits -- you know, following me around and undoing what I've done, putting snarky remarks in their edit summaries, and so on.  I guess they're trying to get me riled up, or something.  No matter, it just means I've taken longer to work through my watchlist than I thought it would. Regarding the supposed 3RR violation - if you check policy, the violation occurs when you go over three reverts.  Thanks for keeping track though -- and if you think I'm wrong, and my reversions have been egregious, I suggest you report them at WP:AN/3RR. Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (Resetting indentation level)

Here's the summary of the changes first made here: Thanks 72.244.204.2 (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC).
 * 1) Intro changed: replaced WP:PEACOCK statements and trivia about the cameo and studio ownership with more traditional statements about recognition the film has received.
 * 2) Plot summary: I shortened it, trying to get it a step closer to the plot summary policy (item 2 under WP:NOT)
 * 3) Created new ownership section, a home for two ownership-related details already present
 * 4) Combined redundant discussions about films and tv episodes influenced by the movie into a single section
 * 5) Analysis section is not verifiable from the two general references it had, so I marked it as needing improvements.
 * 6) Scattered minor other changes, which I'm happy to discuss if you raise them as issues here.


 * Okay, I've had a chance to take a closer look at your edits now. The new ownership section is good, the re-arrangement of sections works for me, some of your minor changes were fine, others I tweaked or adjusted as needed.  The lede section I reworked a bit, removing the character designations (which usually don't go into the lede -- the plot section and the cast list take care of it, but since we didn't have a cast section, I've added one.) I think the lede is more in line now with film articles standards.  Oh - I restored some material that you deleted there, because it was referenced, and it's generally not a good idea to removed cited information unless there's a very good reason to do so. I think your amalgamation of the influence section is fine, but I'm going to have to take another look at it.  The biggest problem I can see right now is the plot section, and "problem" not because I object to anything you've done, but because the way the diffs are formatted, it's a little hard to tell what you've done (I think that's what led me to believe that your changes were more substantial that I think they've turned out to be.)  I'm going to have to review it by reading the old section and then reading yours to get any idea of what kind of changes you've made. I think that about covers it, then.  I'll be back with comments on the plot section, if I have any. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've done an A/B on the old and new plot sections, and I have to say that I think you've done a really good job. I didn't miss anything from the old section, and your new one is actually quite taut and suspenseful in and of itself. I've made a number of really minor tweaks, which you can look at, but your new section stands as is, as far as I'm concerned.  Nicely done.  I apologize for reverting, I think I really jumped the gun.  My only excuse is that the presentation of the diffs made it look very much more of an alteration that it actually was, and I miscontrued what was going on.  I'm sorry about that. You should register, you clearly know how to write, and how to edit, and it would make it a *lot* easier to be able to identify your edits and know that they don't have to be minutely scrutinized the way many IP address edits do. (That sounds like prejudice, but it's just experience talking.) Anyway, my apologies again for the hassles - good work. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just added a new section on the film's critical reception. I also marked items from the analysis section that need explicit references.  I was glad to see you added a cast section; it was needed and made a better home (IMHO) for identifying the cameo role that Hitchcock played.  Thanks for the careful review of my initial work and the comments about it.  I apologize for the off-by-one error w.r.t. 3RR; I've been active editing since before the Three-revert rule article was created and yet all this time I've thought 3 reverts was the threshold, not 4.  67.100.127.253 (talk) (f.k.a. 72.244.204.2, etc.) 03:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem re: 3RR. "Reception" looks good. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary
This is one of the better film articles out there, but, as has now been asserted by multiple editors, it contains such an exhaustive plot summary that delves into such great depth that it plainly exceeds what is necessary to provide an encyclopedic discussion of the film. At nearly a page long it goes into such depth that it might very well border on a copyvio. Please stop removing it without making dramatic cuts or more substantive counter-arguments than "no it's not." MrZaius talk  12:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think it's too long, edit it, don't throw a tag on it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally I would go in a trim out the bloat (feel free to check my contribs for past efforts to film plots) but I haven't seen this film in years and so do not feel I could do anything other than trim the odd word. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

McCarthyism
I take issue with the last paragraph of the "Analysis" section, which puts forth the theory that the film encourages Americans to spy on their neighbors into order to find "undesirables" (communists). This theory seems purely speculative, it seems contextually unwarranted in the film itself, and no citations are provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.34.210 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Analysis
It's not very encyclopedic. There are no citations - instead of saying "Professor So-and-so theorizes that the film means this" it just says "the film means this." If it's supposed to be related to the preceding "Other issues such as voyeurism and feminism are analyzed in John Belton's book Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window"", like it's a quote or something, that needs to be made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.224.26 (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO let them all ride, because the entire "anaysis" is silly. People wrote books to make money, not explain RW. Gullible people fell for it. The finale of RW is a series of punchlines by Hitch to his audience. The only "analysis" of RW is that life is not always as it seems. His jokes at the end reinforce that.--Reedmalloy (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

3D re-release
Information of the 3D re-release of the film: http://www.pr.com/press-release/412244 --Fluffystar (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional Television Influence
I noticed that the "Television" part of the "Influence" section of the article is missing a Rear Window-inspired Robot Chicken parody. Here are the sources: http://robotchicken.wikia.com/wiki/Keep_It_Wheel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkNLzoTV_Zw 208.107.64.11 (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Technical note
The camera that features prominently in the film can be identified as a 35mm Exakta Varex VX with a Kilfitt Fern-Kilar f/5.6 400mm lens. KymFarnik (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rear Window. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615142325/http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/rear-window/1175849 to http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/rear-window/1175849/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)