Talk:The Life of Emile Zola

Infamous
I always thought the Dreyfuss Affair was more famous than infamous... Susan Mason


 * The Dreyfuss Affair I think can be described as infamous. -- Tarquin 21:19 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

That is a great opinion, and I value it. I would not object to an article stating, "Tarquin thinks the Dreyfuss Affair was infamous." Others disagree with your opinion however... Susan Mason


 * Who? -- Tarquin 21:36 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

me and the person who changed this article 5 minutes ago, for starters... Susan Mason


 * Not enough. Find some historians who believe this. -- Tarquin 21:40 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Why don't YOU find some historians who support YOUR opinion? Susan Mason


 * I don't need to. The Dreyfuss affair wasinfamous. Go read about it -- Tarquin 21:52 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

I have, and you are imposing your opinion of the affair as if it was some iron law or fact. Susan Mason


 * This article is not even ABOUT the Dreyfuss affair. We're mentioning it in passing. We want to give a quick impression of what the Affair actually was. The word "infamous" gives a quick description, it establishes it as something which occupied people and had a considerable impact on French society. If you can find a suitable synonym, change it. But Susan & anonymous IP, please don't remove information which helps the reader. -- Tarquin 21:56 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

If you want to say what it was, then say what it was. Infamous doesn't help anybody. Blahblahblahblahinfamousblahblahblahblah, oh look an infamous blahblah boy that sure helps me understand what it was. Susan Mason


 * I don't understand what you mean. -- Tarquin 22:00 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

What I mean is, infamous is a meaningless POV term which you are trying to retain because you feel it is of great importance to the topic, but apparently it isn't of such great importance because you can't even find one historical source to attribute the statement to. Susan Mason


 * Tarq, I've got a different slant altogether, and I'm the one who first changed this. My main point here is that wikipedia shouldn't have a stance on whether any single event was famous or infamous.  Do you let people would let it stand if we had articles that read the infamous bombing of pearl harbor or the infamous election of george bush?  The Dreyfus Affair happened, sure.  It was a big deal and it effected French history, sure.  But to call it infamous that is just a POV.


 * As a secondary point, notice that *this* article is about a motion picture. How is the description of this motion picture improved by making an edititorial statement that the Dreyfus Affair was infamous?

No anon user, we both have identical slants. Susan Mason


 * wikipedia shouldn't have a stance on whether any single event was famous or infamous.
 * How is the description of this motion picture improved by making an edititorial statement that the Dreyfus Affair was infamous?

You both misunderstand what the NPOV policy means. If historians disagreed about the Affair, we'd have to take a neutral stance and report both sets of opinions. But this is not the case. This is just nit-picking. And yes, it did affect French society. The effects were considerable -- Tarquin 22:10 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

infamous is a POV-NPOV means NO POV. If you wish to quote a historian regarding how the Affair was "infamous", then go ahead. If you can't find a quote on that then you don't even know what you are talking about, and if you can find the quote, then u need to credit it. Susan Mason

Surely NPOV means NEUTRAL point of view? 217.39.67.187 22:46 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Hi 217 - quoting from NPOV - ''A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view on a controversial issue that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or carefully but subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.''


 * Also from that page: By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."... So Wikipedians can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.  Susan and anonymous IP, please establish that a sizeable number of historians believe that the Affair was not infamous. Otherwise I wwill restore the single word that we are having interminable debate over. -- Tarquin 23:41 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Tarquin, I know of no historians who will state that it is a "fact" that the affair is infamous. It is up to you to provide some support for your POV statement. Susan Mason

Antisemitism
I realize that this page is (justly) tagged under Wikiprojects: Judaism, and I wholeheartedly agree that it falls under that purvue. However, while the Dreyfus affair was in fact an example of antisemitism rearing its ugly head, such prejudice is virtually absent in this film. The word "Jew" doesn't even appear in it, owing to Hollywood's stance on antisemitism at the time (check out the documentary "Hollywood and the Holocaust" for this and other examples).

That said, I've removed the phrase "(and much antisemitism)" from the following line of the plot section:


 * With little thought (and much antisemitism), the army commanders decide that Jewish Captain Alfred Dreyfus (Joseph Schildkraut) is the traitor.

Since the film itself glosses over such antisemitism, I feel that such a parenthetical remark is POV in this particular instance. Should someone else feel compelled to add a section detailing the film's historical veracity, such section should by all means address this issue. But as a remark in passing that is unsupported by the film itself, it adds editorial comment to a straightforward description of the plot. Pac if ic Bo y  20:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The article states that the movie never uses the word "Jew." I saw the film three days ago. When the army brass were deciding who should be blamed for Esterhazy's actions, they read over a list of possible candidates. One of officers fixes upon the name "Dreyfus" and asks what is known about him. He is shown a note card summarizing Dreyfus' bio. The camera focuses on the card and scrolls down until it stops at the words "Religion: Jew." The officer then asserts that they've found their man. I agree that the movie skirts the issue of antisemitism, but it's inaccurate to day that it's simply avoided. User:InvisibleSun 22 February 2017

21st Century Controversy section
@User:Parkwells - Respectfully, this section doesn't make much sense as written. It definitely needs some context in regards to this specific film. There's definitely some interesting and/or encyclopedic info here, but its confusing as written.--Phibesfan (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it is confusing; seems to be missing material.Parkwells (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've combined all the content about 21st-c. controversy, and expanded discussion to provide more context. It doesn't make sense to have it in two places.Parkwells (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of the section deals with the overarching issue of Hollywood's reluctance to avoid films that disparaged the Nazis and had little to do with The Life of Emile Zola specifically, so I have trimmed the section to remove much of the meandering narrative. There is more to say about the film's failure to address the topic of antisemitism and Fox's complicity based on research in Thomas Schatz's tremendous The Genius of the System: Hollywood Filmmaking in the Studio Era, which I plan to add to this article soon. Gcjnst (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)