Talk:The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (film)

Reference link has bad URL
I wasn't able to find it quickly, but it should be corrected when possible. Migp 06:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section
I removed this section for a few reasons. First of all, there is nothing controversial about the differences between the book and the film. Second, I fail to see the ecyclopedic notability. The differences are not notable simply due to the fact they exist. If that were '''the case, every Wikipedia film article that's based on a book would have such a section attached to itself due to the unavoidable fact of artistic interpretation by the filmmakers. The only external link provided for this section states the following about the differences between the book and the film:'''

Third, without proper references to verify not only the relevance of these differences but to specifically list them, I would qualify their inclusion in Wikipedia as WP:OR. Lastly, though the differences may exist, I believe that having a whole section devoted to these differences gives WP:UNDUE weight to this point of view and might give the reader the wrong impression of how notable this issue really is compared to the coverage, or lack thereof, of the subject in reliable media sources. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that the controversy section is still in the article. If not completely being removed, I suggest that wording be changed, as it's clearly opinionated. SweetNightmares (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I guess I really don't read a lot of entertainment news, but what the heck is Salon.com? I've never heard of it, which makes me question the section's credibility, as well. SweetNightmares (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No comment on the Controversy section, but Salon.com is definitely a reliable source. - kollision (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the section needs to be edited down a lot. It's almost a word-for-word retelling of the Salon article. It's fine to point out that some of Bauby's life was fictionalized for the film, and to use the Salon article as a reference, but this much detail is not necessary. People can link to the article if they're interested. Salon has been publishing since 1995 and is a reliable source. --Utilizer (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to edit this section so it's not so detailed. It borders on plagarism at the moment. The heading should probably reflect how the film adaptation was fictionalized in parts, rather than a source of controversy, which reflects bias. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know. Utilizer (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I edited this section down, as noted from last July. It has since been reverted back and I'd like to know why. It's very close to a retelling of the entire article and should be edited extensively. Most movies take liberties with the "truth" and I don't think this particular instance, while interesting and relevant, deserves such a huge and detailed section as referenced by one article in Salon. --Utilizer (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From the article's history it seems Utilizer's edit was reverted without rationale and against consensus by a user who is now indefinitely blocked. I have restored this original edit not just for the reasons given above but also because the current section is incomprehensible and has very clear WP:BLP issues. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Utilizer (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My edit
Alistair Stevenson reverted my edit on the ground that it is against consensus as expressed in the section above. I don't think my edit is against consensus - the only clear consensus above was for the trimming down of the huge six-paragraph section "Controversy" that used to exist in earlier versions of this article, because it was too detailed. But I didn't revert or restore that section, I just added a couple of sentences elaborating on Utilizer's wording. It's too vague to say that there were changes regarding the issue of relationships and not explain what sort of changes these were. I see no justification for removing any further reference to the nature of these changes. This research has been published in Salon.com, a well-known source whose reliability Utilizer himself affirmed above.

Alistair Stevenson referred to WP:BLP and to WP:Undue Weight above, but he has been the only one to do that, so there has never been a consensus that any explanation of the nature of the inaccuracies would necessarily violate either of these policies. As for WP:BLP, while the version of the events reported by Salon.com could be seen as harmful for the "mother of the children", the opposite version is definitely harmful for Bauby's girlfriend. If the film was not only inaccurate with respect to the life of the dead author but also grossly unfair to a living person, as the Salon.com article argues, the censoring of any mention of this unfairness can hardly be motivated by WP:BLP, whose spirit is precisely to avoid such unfairness. Even if one were to interpret WP:BLP as banning any mention of an assertion found in a reliable secondary source that reflects negatively on a living person - and this is definitely not the normal interpretation - this could only mean avoiding the suggestion that the "mother of the children" collaborated in the making of the script and is thus responsible for these changes; the rest of the information doesn't harm her in any way. She and Bauby had separated, weren't particularly close and each of them had found a new partner, so she was by no means obliged to always be with him, especially as his current girlfriend was there. As for "WP:Undue Weight" - while Salon.com's version of the events is little known, there is no alternative version of the events that is more widely accepted, so it's not a case of "undue weight" as defined in the policy - not any more than the mention of any other little known fact is. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This continues to show bias. It's personal and doesn't have bearing on any information about the movie, other than your opinion as stated. I've pointed out that readers can link to Salon if they're interested in this aspect of the movie.


 * Books are revised pretty much 100% of the time for film adaptations. The only book I can recall never being altered, other than shortened, was "Rosemary's Baby," directed by Roman Polanski, who claims he didn't know at the time that he could change the story to make the film. Since this is a fact of filmmaking, editors can't go into great detail as to every change made in every story ever committed to the screen. You continue to revert to your own edits because of something personal going on here. --Utilizer (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)