Talk:The Rules of the Game/Archive 2

July 2014
It's a little nutty to be debating edits when the Talk page hasn't been used in over a year. for some reason, my comments aren't being allowed on ANI (there was an "Edit Conflict" with an admin closing the thread rather prematurely). So, I'll repost them here:

Beyond My Ken's behavior meets my definition of antagonistic. BMK claims to be willing in a cooperative and collegial manner, but remarks like this suggest otherwise: "So, if you ever accuse me of trying to own the article again, or revert my edits blindly without good reason, I will not respond to you, I will not go to an admin, I will take your attempted ownership of the article directly to AN/I. That's both a warning, and a promise....So, back off ... now." . And, I don't follow the logic that since Deoliveirafan has contributed more to the article, s/he must have ownership issues. It looks to me like the last consensus version is considerably prior to BMK's recent streak of edits, and edit comments like "I will continue to edit anywhere I want to, including here)" suggest an unwillingness to obtain consensus first. Howunusual (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, your edit of a moment ago -- in which you reverted all of my carefully considered changes with an untruthful edit summary saying they were "against consensus" -- is pretty antagonistic, don't you think? You didn't bother to consider whether my edits -- which I carefully made in small batches so that they could be more easily discussed -- improved the article, you just wiped them all out at once. Since there has been no discussion of my edits (as opposed to my supposed behavior) there canbe no "consensus" about them, so I have restored them.  I'm willing to discuss them, but doing so in small batches is much easier than doing so en masse -- that's why I made them that way.  Please do not revert again, or this may become a matter for admins. BMK (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It seemed clear to me that Deo was objecting to them However, I agree I should let that editor make their stance clear. However, when you tell people to "back off...now" and make other comments like you did, it's pretty hard to accept your complaints about ownership. It looks like a copyeditor volunteered to examine the article and you kind of stomped all over that effort at collaboration. Howunusual (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Back off" from their accusing me of owning the article,  not  from editing it. The entire thrust of my comment was in response to their accusation, for the second time, of my trying to own the article - I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you. BMK (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and their editing stats are obviously not any kind of proof of "ownership" by themselves, it's her being the majority contributor and then trying to chase me away that's ownership-like behavior. BMK (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into the content here (and you should be glad, I'm clueless about old French films) and will just say please....please keep it on the merits, talk about the film, not each other. Everyone just needs to calm down and talk.  You got off to a bad start, but there are no bad guys, just different ideas.  No one wants to burn down the article or get it deleted, you all want to improve it.  Work from that angle.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. BMK (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, this seems to be a great misunderstanding on the side of Deoliveirafan. In the ANI thread it has eventually become obvious that she made a request at COPYEDITORS for this article to be overhauled . So when Miniapolis first accepted the task and agreed to work on the article, Deoliveirafan obviously thought this to be some sort of exclusive job. Which was of course wrong. So in hindsight I don't think she's trying to own the article but was rather overly protective awaiting Miniapolis' edits. De728631 (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Copyediting is not an "overhaul"; for crying out loud, I was just trying to polish the prose.  Mini  apolis  23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What you did was neither "copy editing" nor "polishing the prose", you were liberally re-writing. It was not pretty. BMK (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I myself just realized that after Deo's comment on Dennis Brown's talk page. It certainly explains Deo's apparent expectation that no one else would copy edit the article.  As a terrific misunderstanding on the part of all parties involved, I suggest we turn to discussion of the actual edits in a new thread. I'm happy to explain why I made the changes I did. BMK (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a great example of BMK's contributions to Wikipedia: This is a problem who needs to be dealt with.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BMK and De728631, you are both terrible liars rememberarians/noticatarians and there was no confusion. These pages have timestamps you know: --Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to stop soapboxing and restrict your comments here to the article topic itself. Also, you need to strike the "liars" comment, as my patience is reaching its limit, and that is clearly a personal attack.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And before you reply, EVERYONE was confused by your comments at ANI, myself included. I even asked you what you meant and you declined to reply.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So what, do you expect BMK to have the copyedits page and Miniapolis user talk on his watchlist? I don't see that Miniapolis publicly announced his upcoming edits on this article or at this very talk page. Honestly, you're really close before getting blocked for harrassment of BMK and not listening to what people tell you. De728631 (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'll strike the word even though its not exactly a sensational or vulgar comment. But as you can see : I'm not the only one complaining.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No one thinks Ken is an angel. My point is only that we need to move forward and worry about the article, which is all that matters.  The copyedit guild thing: I never even knew that existed, and I've got 48,000 edits behind me and have been here 8 years.  It isn't common, which is why explaining would have been helpful and why everyone was confused.  Most important is that he has said you have some good ideas.  I promise he isn't a fool and likely does as well.  Try forgiving and just working together.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My final word is that I respectfully suggest that you Admins think real hard about who you stand by. You continue to tell half truths even though the facts contradict them and I think that that is an unwise decision. I already stated that I do not intend to edit the page until the CE Guild does an edit. Its amazing that after all of this you still seem to believe (or "believe") that I'm the one who needs to back down. As far as I'm concerned you are currently endorsing all of BMK's behavior.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit request on hold
A recent copy edit request for this article has been placed on hold by the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild of Copy Editors prefers to take copy edit requests on articles that are stable enough that thorough copy editing will have a positive, somewhat long-lasting effect on the article. If you can discuss and agree on this page that you are willing to take a break from the article, we will be happy to come back and give it a thorough copy edit, after which you can discuss any edits that you see as inaccurate or inconsistent. Please post a note here or on the page linked above if you can come to an agreement. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm now working on the requested c/e of this article; if either editor disagrees with my edits; please inform me on my talk page and I'll stop. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Explanations
Let me do this by sections, it'll be easier, and I can stop and do RW things in-between. BMK (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Lede

 * Stars: The list of stars in the lede sentence was truncated to four people, while the billing box has 9 people equally billed. Selecting four out of nine people to highlight is POV, so I restored all nine to the sentence
 * The primary problem with the lede was that it was much too long. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the important points of the article, but as it was it mentioned almost every point made, albeit in much shortened form.  For instance the sentence which talked about the filming being delayed by rain - that's not important enough for the lede, and there were otheres like that.  My edits were to focus the lede on the most important items told in the most efficient way.  If I've dropped something which was important, let's talk about it - but I don't think the over all thrust of my revision is wrong. BMK (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Background and writing
As I look back at it, I did very little here - provided some missing capitals, broke up a long paragraph at an obvious break point, changed to the preferred form of quotation marks (i.e. " as opposed to “ and ”). I also shifted the photo to the right side, since the quote box had appeared previously on the left side - on the generally accepted theory that as much as possible images, boxes, charts etc. should alternate sides to provide visual variety to the reader's eye.  I think that's pretty much all I did here. BMK (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Casting
Here again I shift the image to the opposite side, for the same reason. I removed a redlink. In the section which dealt with the people that Renoir wanted to cast but couldn't, I adjust the form of a sentence because I thought the rhythm was getting a bit monotonous: "Renoir wanted so-and-so to play such-and-such, but instead they did this other film with this other director." I thiok that section could still use some work to improve the flow. BMK (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Filming
Again, an image was shifted to have left-right variety, quotation marks were swapped, I did a bit of adjusting of language in a couple of sentences, just to improve the wording or make clear the time involved (past vs. present), I provided missing apostrophes for possessives. BMK (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Initial editing and previews
The section about the cutting of the film I did some work on to avoid the excessive use of the word "cut", which seemed to be utilized in every sentence, sometimes twice. Again I divided a paragraph which seemed like two different ideas. I added some Wikilinks, added some possessives, did a little rewording where I thought it necessary for clarification, swapped quotation marks, and so on. BMK (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Release and reception
Shifted and image up and to the other side - same rationale as before, to balance left/right visual variety. BMK (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Re-discovery
Added wikilink, removed scare quotes from "neglected", swap quotation marks, changed "stated" to "said" due to overuse in article as a whole (in general, institutions should "state", people should "say" or some other word), fixed misspelling of "publicly", changed "publicly screened" to "exhibited", decapitalized "cinematheques". BMK (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Themes
Swapped quotation marks, Wikilinked "Franco", fixed "Bergman wrote" to "Bergan wrote" (since the source credited is "Bergan" - Should have added "Ronald" to Bergan, since I don't believe he's been mentioned as yet to that point). BMK (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Style
Swapped quotation marks, provided apostrophes for possessives. BMK (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Legacy
Changed errant "Since the first restoration" to "Since the film's restoration", swapped quotation marks, Wikilinked names, divided very long paragraph into two grafs at obvious point where subject changes. BMK (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In summary...
That's what I did. I think it's obvious that the vast majority of the changes I made were, or should be, completely uncontroversial. The only thing that could possibly be contentious is the trimming of the lede section, which, as I said above, I'm willing to discuss with whoever is interested in discussing it. I've done my part here, I've explained on the talk page why I made these edits (which, with the possible exception of the reduction of the lede section, can't really be said to be "Bold" edits at all, they're simply run-of-the-mill copy edits), and I look forward to specific comments about specific edits. BMK (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Which variant of English should be used?
I'm currently about 2/3 through a major copy-edit of the article. I've asked one major cotributor, here which variant should be used; I've found both UK/Commonwealth and US spellings. I've seen "modeled", "theater" (rem), and "improvisation" (exception to 'ize'). I'm guessing American English—in which "theater" and "theatre" are accepted but only "modeled" not "modelled", and "...ize" not "...ise"—should be used. I think digging through the article's history is pointless; what we want here is consistency and not slavish adherence to history. I invite editors to tell me convincingly which variant should be used.

If no comments are forthcoming by the time I finish my c/e, I'm going to boldly change it to American English simply because that would be easier for me and because there are no strong ties to any English-speaking nation. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page, I can live with either, and a mixture of both really doesn't bother me, but if I have to choose, I'd go with American English, if only because the majority of the text seems to use it already. (If I'm wrong about that, let me know). BMK (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:Wukai
User:Wukai did some editing on the article, which I reverted because I did not think that, in general, they were improvements. The article is currently in the status quo ante as required by WP:BRD, and I have invited Wukai to discuss their edits here. In the edit summary for their reversion on my reversion, Wukai described the edits as being to"clarify the plot, improve the accuracy of certain phrasings, streamline the syntax, and correct misspellings". It would be helpful if he or she discussed their edits under those categories, since, for instance, I don't see any corrections of "misspellings" -- unless what is being referred to is the name of some of the characters, which is given as "Cheyniest" in IMDB, but "Chesnaye" by TCM, Allmovie, Roger Ebert, and the New York Times. BMK (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wukai's edits—particularly his/her removal of plot details—don't improve the article. The edits I agree with are the changing of "a country estate" to "Robert's country estate"—something i should have done myself—and a correction of "Octavee" to "Octave" that was probably my fault! I'll correct these when I next edit the article. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. BMK (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any plot details. I did add some very important ones, though ("André and Christine declare their love for each other and plan to run away together. Robert and André come to blows over Christine"). Why wouldn't you include them?Wukai (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's take an example. I changed "Renoir's career in France was at its pinnacle at the time and The Rules of the Game was highly anticipated. However, its premiere was met with anger and disapproval by film critics and the public." to "With Renoir's career at its pinnacle in 1939, The Rules of the Game was eagerly anticipated, but its premiere was met with anger and disapproval by critics and the public." This is an improvement because (1) Renoir's career was not at its pinnacle only in France; (2) "at the time" is vague; (3) "highly anticipated" is unidiomatic (were they anticipating the movie highly?); (4) "However" is an ugly way to start a sentence and the conjunction "but" serves the same function more elegantly. I eagerly anticipate your objections.Wukai (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologise, Wukai, for saying you removed plot information. I read the diffs of your and BMK's mutual reversions incorrectly. I was tired; it happens. ;-)

This is your restoration of your edits. I don't think your changes improved the article overall though. For example:
 * From the first para header you removed " ... showing their moral callousness on the eve of impending destruction." Why did you remove this? It appears to be an important part of what the film was trying to achieve;
 * From the second paragraph, you removed " ... and additional funds had to be sought." Why did you remove this?
 * You changed "Marceau (Julien Carette) – a poachersneaks onto the estate to retrieve a rabbit caught in a snare. Before Marceau can escape, ..." to "A poacher, Marceau (Julien Carette), sneaks onto the estate to retrieve a rabbit caught in a snare, but before he can escape, ...", which merges the sentences into a single clunky and over-lengthy one;
 * From the first para of "Plot", you removed "whom" for no apparent reason. You also changed "telephone" to "phone". The former is the correct word; it's not archaic like "perambulator" (pram). "Phone" is a foreshortening of "telephone".

I could probably sit here all night and critique your edits, but that would be counterproductive. Instead, I'll reinsert and copy-edit your major additions to "Plot" before I break off my copy-edit; BMK can decide whether or not to revert them. ✅ Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) Because it's such an oversimplification it's arguably false. Many, and I'd say most, of the film's characters are not notably callous. (2) Because it's redundant. The budget was doubled, so of course additional funds had to be sought. (3) There was no need to set off "a poacher" with dashes rather than commas, and the merged sentence is not overlong. (4) Why include "whom" when the sentence is grammatical without it? And "telephone" is stilted. Wukai (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, Wukai.


 * Default: I can't comment on the callousness of the characters because I haven't watched the film, nor do I intend to.
 * Budget: The article says the original budget was 2.5 million francs, to which another 2 million were added, making 4.5 million so far. Its final budget was over 5 million, thus the sentence removed refers to the additional finance and doesn't seem to be redundant.
 * "Whom": you may have a point there; it seemed it was needed. It comes from my rather formal writing style. I retract.
 * "Telephone" may seem "stilted" to you, but it's the full and correct word for an electrical vocal communication device with a microphone, earphone and dial or pushbutton keypad. It's not an archaic word in the same way that "television" isn't.
 * Anyway, my copy-edit is over and I'm done; you may edit as you please without my interference. I incorporated your additions to "Plot" into the article. Thanks again for discussing here; it's appreciated. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Wukai (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your latest set of edits, as they did not improve the article. Please discuss them here, specifically and in detail.  Do not restore them. BMK (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: you made some edits, I reverted them as not improvements, Baffle gab agreed with me. Then she decided some of the edits were alright and put them in the article, and I acceded to her judgment.  That means that right now the article is in the state that a 'consensus of the editors discussing your edits believes is best, so by reinstating your edits you are editing against consensus which, on Wikipedia, is a very bad thing to do.  Your edits will only go into the article if and when there is a consensus that agrees that they improve the article.  Until then, you need to  stop editing against consensus '', which is the kind of thing that can get you blocked from editing. BMK (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning. I've explained some of my edits, and the discussion concluded with permission to "edit as you please." In response to your latest request, here is more explanation: (1) in French titles, ordinary nouns are not capitalized, hence "règle." (2) There is no need to repeat "of The Rules of the Game" in "the 85-minute version of The Rules of the Game", since it's clear that a version of The Rules of the Game is meant. (3) The second "have" in "Numerous film critics and directors have praised it and have cited it as an inspiration for their own work" is unnecessary. (4) Robert and André fight physically, not merely verbally. Wukai (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For the title, check the French Wikipedia article, in which the "R" is capitalized throughout. La Règle du jeu
 * agreed on #2 & 3
 * "fistfight is a terrible word choice, something like "come to blows" would be better.
 * BMK (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) That's strange, because it isn't standard. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031885/releaseinfo#akas for example. (4) I agree. The first time I edited this article, I used "come to blows." Baffle gab1978 changed it back to "fight." Thank you for agreeing with the other two edits. Some of my other explanations (in the paragraph above beginning "Let's take an example") have received no response. Would you like to respond to them? Wukai (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I used "fight" because it's unambiguous and doesn't need explaining. "Come to blows" is a euphemism; these are deprecated on Wikipedia – see Words to Watch. A verbal fight is called an argument; the verb is to argue. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For me and most English speakers I know, "fight" is not unambiguous in the way you claim it is. "They were fighting" can mean they were merely arguing, without coming to blows. Wukai (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) @Baffle gab1978: I'm not sure that I agree that "fight" is not ambiguous: "My wife and I had a fight last night" most probably means a verbal argument, "There was a fight between two guys down on the corner" most probably means a physical altercation. We tell the difference by context. "Robert and André fight over Christine" doesn't give enough context to decide which meaning is intended. Now, "Come to blows" is not a euphemism at all -- I'd say that it's very slightly archaic or poetic, perhaps, but a "blow" is a hit or a punch, and to "come to blows" literally means to arrive at a physical altercation. "Fistfight" I find clunky and even more archaic -- it brings to mind two old time boxers putting up their dukes. I'm open to other choices, but I think that, of the possibilities so far discussed "come to blows" is the best choice. BMK (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I do agree "fistfight" is a little awkward, and "come to blows" seems to be consensus here and is thus acceptable to me. I can't think of a decent alternative (my Chambers dictionary has "fisticuffs" or there's "have a punch-up"). I'm British so my use of English probably seems slightly archaic anyway. C'est la vie and all that. :-)


 * Anyway, I've promoted the article to B-Class and my work here is done. Good luck with the article; I do hope it reached FA status one day. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There's still been no response to the explanation I gave in the paragraph above beginning "Let's take an example." Does that mean I can proceed with those edits without being against consensus? Wukai (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Please enumerate them here so we don't have to trawl back through the discussion. Also, your reversion of the "moral callousness" sentence was not unobjected to - I agree with Bafflegab that it should stay, so I have reinstated it to match the consensus. BMK (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed "Renoir's career in France was at its pinnacle at the time and The Rules of the Game was highly anticipated. However, its premiere was met with anger and disapproval by film critics and the public." to "With Renoir's career at its pinnacle in 1939, The Rules of the Game was eagerly anticipated, but its premiere was met with anger and disapproval by critics and the public." This is an improvement because (1) Renoir's career was not at its pinnacle only in France; (2) "at the time" is vague; (3) "highly anticipated" is unidiomatic (were they anticipating the movie highly?); (4) "However" is an ugly way to start a sentence and the conjunction "but" serves the same function more elegantly. As for the "moral callousness" clause, I find it to be such an oversimplification that it's arguably false. Most of the characters are not notably callous. Bafflegab did not disagree with me, having never seen the film. Wukai (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm gonna do my Solomon act and divide the baby. I like Bafflegab's sentence structure better than yours, because it raises an expectation and then releases it in the new sentence, while yours is a bit run=on and more monotonic in rhythm.  I don't agree that starting a sentence with "However" is awkward.  However, I have no objection to using "eagerly" instead of "highly" and using "in 1939" instead of "at the time". It's in France that Renoir had the string of hits, so "in France" should stay. These changes would render this:


 * Renoir's career in France was at its pinnacle in 1939 and The Rules of the Game was eagerly anticipated. However, its premiere was met with anger and disapproval by film critics and the public.


 * OK? BMK (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I still dislike "however". How about this:


 * "Renoir's career in France was at its pinnacle in 1939 and The Rules of the Game was eagerly anticipated. But its premiere was met with anger and disapproval by film critics and the public."


 * Also, you've neglected to comment on my argument for removing the "moral callousness" clause.
 * "But" is much worse for starting a sentence than "However". Unless someone else chimes in to change the consensus, the "moral callousness" sentence is staying in the article. BMK (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't much of a discussion. I offer reasons for changes, and you reject them without explaining why. On the "but" vs. "however" question, are you perhaps under the misapprehension that conjunctions should not start sentences? Please see Common_English_usage_misconceptions ("Garner tells us, 'It is a gross canard that beginning a sentence with but is stylistically slipshod. In fact, doing so is highly desirable in any number of contexts, as many stylebooks have said (many correctly pointing out that but is more effective than however at the beginning of a sentence)).'" Wukai (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's enough of a discussion to establish consensus, which is what matters. BMK (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On what grounds do you claim "but" is "much worse for starting a sentence" than "however"? Like Bryan Garner in the passage quoted at Common_English_usage_misconceptions, I claim the opposite. Wukai (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to have an extended discussion of "but" and "however", it just ain't going to happen. At the moment, I'm prefectly happy with the two sentences as they stand.  You objected to some parts of them, I offered an altenative which adapted some of your suggestions.  That's called a "compromise".  If you're not interested in that, fine, then the sentences stands as they are, but there's nothing anywhere in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that says I have to waste my time debating minutia with an editor who won't even entertain a compromise. So, consensus having been established, the sentences stand as they are, unless other editors enter the discussion and the consensus changes. If you'd like to be reasonable, and consider the compromise I offered, please say so here, otherwise, I am done with this silly conversation. BMK (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that you made the other changes. Good, so we're done here. BMK (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unfair to call my interest in your reasons for your views an unwillingness to compromise with them. I've demonstrated no such unwillingness. If you make statements like "'but' is much worse for starting a sentence than 'however'" and "the 'moral callousness' sentence is staying in the article" without giving a reason, you have to expect to be questioned, given that I have (stated) reasons for the opposite point of view in each case. I'm sorry you find the conversation silly. These are certainly minor questions, but if they're so trivial as to be a waste of time to debate, why do you insist that they be resolved one way rather than the other? Wukai (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ernst-Rüdiger von Starhemberg
"Stahremberg was forced to resign his leadership role in the Heimwehr – a paramilitary fascist party – because Gregor was Jewish and he was anti-fascist." 1. It's Starhemberg not "Stahremberg". 2. He never resigned from Heimwehr, but rather refrained from becoming Dollfuß's successor as chancellor because of his Heimwehr affiliations which were considered problematic in post-civil-war Austria. 3. He was not "antifascist", but an "austro-fascist" politician. See also the Wiki article on his life. This is a no-brainer sentence really, how can he be at the same have a leadership role in a fascist organisation (NOT a "party" as is falsely said, also it was not technically fascist, though right-wing) and be anti-fascist? 4. So called "Austro-Fascism" was not antisemitic, so there would have been no reason to resign because of his wife. 5. I got my edit reverted with the demand to source my claim the sentence was false. Yet the false sentence was not sourced either. Go figure. 6. All this corresponds with the German article on Starhemberg, where all sources are given. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%BCdiger_Starhemberg --Wilutzky~enwiki (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a reliable source to back up thee claims, citing a Wikipedia article is not sufficient (see WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source), Until you have done so, please do not continue to edit war to remove the material, which is in the article as the result of consensus between a number of editors. BMK (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added that info. Admittedly the misspelling may be a typo on my part, but your other objections are sourced from the materials listed at the end of the paragraph. I'm glad that I only experimented with batch citations (I think that's what its called) on the first two sections, because now I have to go find my old handwritten notes to figure out which of the sources I got that info from. At any rate, I'll double check. It should be noted that the info came from books related to film history, not WWII history, so maybe my sources are incorrect. From my recollection, I think that more than one of the sources supported the sentence. I'm open to a compromise. Will be back soon.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Formatting
An editor persists in removing formatting which has been in the article for quite a long time, despite a discussion on their talk page outlining the reasons for the formatting. The salient points:


 * Although MOS:BOLD says "Do not use boildface for emphasis in article text" (it actually should say, "Avoid using...", since MOS is a descriptive guideline and not a prescriptive policy), a pullquote is not article text, is is a quote which is as separate from the text as an image or table is.
 * As many editors forget, MOS is not a policy, it is not mandatory, and, according to ArbCOm, edit warring to enforce it is not acceptable. As a guideline, it is advisory in nature.  It should, of course, be followed if there is no good reason not to.
 * The purpose of a pull quote is to present something that is interesting, informative, or summational for the reader to take in before reading the article text. Hence, it needs to attract the reader's eye.  This is purpose of the quote being boxed, of it having a blue background, and of its being bolded.  All of these things pull the eye to the quote, and the editor's removal of the bolding is nothing more than MOS-enforcement for the sake of MOS-enforcement, without regard to the purpose of the usage.

BMK (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Something being in an article for a long time doesn't mean anything. I never said anything about the MOS being a policy but merely quoted it, and after you didn't see why it was applicable I gave you other reasons so I don't understand your fixation on it when instead you could try addressing my actual arguments.


 * To reiterate my point: The bolding is not only unnecessary, but presents a readability issue, distracting from the subject matter and making the pull quote itself hard to read. This is aggravated by the boldface spanning multiple lines for two different quotes. You say that the quotes are "interesting, informative, or summational", and while they are certainly interesting, nothing is more informative than the actual content of the article. I'd beseech you to remember that pull quotes, as used in publishing, merely repeat content already in the article and the reason that they're so gaudy is so people are drawn to the content itself. Anyway it would be great to have other eyes on the matter, so everyone else please do weigh in. Opencooper (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Behind My Ken, like most of your edits the rational is clearly "Because I say so, I have spoken!" I don't see the point of the bold text and consider it tacky. You don't own this article. I know you have declared yourself as the shepherd of this article, but that does not mean that all other editors have to bow down to your latest tantrum. Opencooper, I support your edit.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if the consensus is to robotically follow MOS, give in to old grudges (Hi, Deoliverrafan!), fail to use your better editorial judgment, and unnecessarily reduce the visual effectiveness of the article, I certainly can't stop you. But, really, in all fairness, you should try to put together some salient arguments for your position instead of the yak splatter above. BMK (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Opencooper and Deoliveirafan. Beyond My Ken, per WP:AGF, you really should not accuse other editors of giving in to "old grudges", and per WP:CIVIL, you should not describe other users's comments as "yak splatter." If you have cogent arguments for your position, then by all means let's hear them. Insults suggest only an inability to defend your position. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, hello there FreeKnowledgeCreator. I finally had a free moment to look at your account and discovered why you've been making a habit of showing up and disputating with me.  I had no idea that you were blocked for a month for socking as "Polisher of Cobwebs", with whom I believe I had a run-in a while ago.   So now I'll understand whenever you automatically disagree with whatever I say. Enjoy your editing until your next major block. BMK (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look you will see that I was actually blocked for using two different socks, not just one. In any event, nothing you have to say about this embarrasses or deters me. You, too, have a checkered history, but unlike you I have no interest in using the past behavior of other editors to score petty points. I would again ask that you actually address the issues at hand instead of making irrelevant comments about other editors. Failure to do so just makes it that much more likely that your recent edits here will be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I knew you had used two socks, but I never interacted with the other one, so it didn't concern me. And, really, with all your editing to articles about Freudian psychoanalysis, I'm surprised that you don't have more insight into the point I'm making here, which is that no one who has responded to my initial comment in this thread has done so with clean hands.  We've got an editor who cannot conceive of a reason why MOS shouldn't be followed slavishly and robotically (really, if you want to make MOS a policy, start a campaign to do so, I can tell you that it won't get far), an editor apparently wanted to WP:OWN the article and couldn't bear to cooperatively edit it with me when it was being copy-edited by a third editor (at her request), so she simply stuck her head in the sand, and you, who appear to be also carrying a grudge for not being able to get me sanctioned in some way for reverting your own robotic MOS-related-edits while you were merrily pretending to be someone else.So, you see, I'm not really at all concerned with the opinions of these three very biased people, I am concerned to show other editors who show up here, that any apparent "consensus" is just a sham, and not  a true consensus of unbiased editors -- just like your own edits as Polisher of Cobwebs and ImprovingWiki were shams, simply you playing games for some unknown reason.  That you are not embarrassed or apologetic about having socked extensively is quite interesting, and informative about you personally, but hardly relevant here.  What will "deter" you is if you continue to show up in this way to automatically gainsay me, because that would be a violation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and a block for that would certainly show you down for a while -- unless, of course, you decide to take matters into your own hands once again and create more socks. BMK (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

So, I'm still looking for comments from unbiased editors, pro or con, regarding the formatting issued that's been raised here. BMK (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There appears to be consensus. Opencooper made valid points and two editors have agreed with him. Behind my Ken continues to use Wikipedia as a means for personal therapy and go completely off topic. I suggest that all involved simply ignore this latest tantrum and that Opencooper reinstates his original good contribution to the article. Great work Opencooper, I would personally love to see any additional improvements that could be made by you on this article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, this has been repeated multiple times by me and the other editors in this discussion: Talk about the issue at hand instead of lobbing personal attacks and accusations of bias, which is a strong indicator of battleground behavior and indicative of a lack of good faith in your fellow editors. No one is saying to "robotically follow the MOS", while I have given you actual arguments which the other editors here have agreed with and you have yet to present a convincing counter-case. If you have any qualms with the editors, bring it up on their talk pages instead of derailing the discussion at hand with irrelevant matters such as an editor's past ban. The consensus is to remove the bolding and since ample time has passed and it seems that you are not willing to discuss matters, (just as you weren't on your talk page) I will be going ahead and implementing the change. Thank you for your kinds words Deoliveirafan and FreeKnowledgeCreator for helping maintain civility. Opencooper (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There will be a consensus, when unbiased editors comment, not until then. BMK (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your current behavior at this article (eg, this edit) is outrageous. There is nothing in WP:CONSENSUS that dictates that a consensus must consist of "unbiased" editors. The only place where bias of any kind is mentioned is in the passage stating, "Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is fine – even encouraged – to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter." That does not apply here. Neither I nor any other editor was invited to this article. What you seem to be suggesting, in effect, is that you can completely disregard the views of other editors because you personally dislike them. That is not how things are supposed to work on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Spot on FreeKnowledgeCreator. Beyond My Ken, do you not understand what consensus means? You, a singular person, do not get to decide what consensus is, but the group itself establishes it. You can't just say "but it isn't really consensus" just because it goes against your position and the same for crying bias when all of us have urged you to make counterpoints but have been met with diversions. Sounds to me like a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Regardless, as you did before to me, I will be reverting the article back to the status quo which is now in favor of no bolding. Of course, consensus can change so we'll see what opinions are formed once some "unbiased" editors speak their mind. Opencooper (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Four reverts by BMK between 13/12/15 and 15/12/15 and three between 15/12/15 and 17/12/15 (the two on 15/12 being counted twice) - BMK may want not to be found in violation of WP:Edit war, in addition to his, by now uncountable violations of WP:Civil, WP:AGF and WP:OWN. 95.233.223.16 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing the page for the purpose of University Module
Hi everyone,

We are a group of university students who have been set the assignment to edit a B-Classed Wikipedia page for our course. During this time, we will be posting some issues we can find within the page and explain our edits or contributes to the existing page. We hope to have a pleasant discussion with everyone and learn throughout the process.

chloeguo--Sladana1996 (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

sladana1996--Sladana1996 (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

kdang125--Sladana1996 (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes that could be made to improve the accuracy of the page

We have noticed serveral confusing aspects whilst reading through the page and thought the site could be improved with some additional information and changes. ''' Adding crew members to the information box ''' Costume designer- Coco Chanel. As sound and music design are two different aspects, they could perhaps be separated which would include crediting Joseph de Bretagne under sound.

Footnotes Renoir later said he never intended to directly adapt Les Caprices de Marianne but only to re-read it and other classics of French literature for inspiration.[8][9][10][11][12] This has a lot of footnotes at the end and it is confusing to see exactly which one you're referring to.

Chloeguo (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)chloeguoChloeguo (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Chloeguo (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)evemurchisonChloeguo (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Chloeguo (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)kdang125Chloeguo (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Chloeguo (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Sladana1996Chloeguo (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking forward to seeing your edits. WP:BOLD Barte (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I was hoping to find a reference/citation for a quote used towards the start of the article - "having an undesirable influence over the young." and in Charles Drazin's book, The Faber Book of French Cinema, he references the same quote with 'Cinématographie Française, 14-24 October 1939'. I've tried to source this edition of the periodical online but as it's so old, I can't seem to find it anywhere and don't know if the reference alone is sufficient enough to include in/add to the article with it not being attainable anywhere online?

Many thanks

Sladana1996 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Sladana1996


 * There's no requirement that a reference be online, and with a source that old, it wouldn't be a surprise. The same applies to books, which are typically not online, but are potentially a prime resource here. Barte (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! I'll include the reference as it is now. Sladana1996 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Sladana1996

Hi,

We have noticed that a book which is used a lot in the page is Ronald Bergan's book Jean Renoir Projections of Paradise a Biography. We came across a piece of information that seems to contrast the other sources we have looked at. In the book, it says 'When La Règle du jeu opened at the Colisée on 11 July', whereas other scholarly articles stated that it was the 7th of July. We were wondering if there's any French speaking scholars who can clarify this information from an original source and it may be advisable to cross check other factual information from this book that is used on the page.

Chloeguo (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)chloeguoChloeguo (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I remember reading the contradictions of the release date from different sources when I added that info. To be honest, I just picked one. I found the Drazin book at my local library. In the first few sections I was experimenting in batch citations at the end of each paragraph. I now regret doing that and one day will find my old handwritten notes to put each citation next to its corresponding sentence. I'm skeptical that some of the info you added should be in the info box. Also, some of your contributions have been short, stubby sentences at the end of a section. I'll fix it but it would be better to integrate them into a paragraph. I'm amazed that Behind my Ken hasn't gone on the warpath against you guys (beware, this page is his personal property), but great job overall.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't know if you are finished with this project, but there is no need to include a source in the bibliography section if you only used it once in the article. I'll leave it since you may continue with the project for now.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)