Talk:The Secret in Their Eyes

Opening heading
I think a better translation would be "The secret of his eyes" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcartolo (talk • contribs) 01:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I think they had to translate it this way for an English-speaking audience, because "sus ochos" could mean his OR her eyes, and the ambiguity can only be translated into English by "their eyes".--Partnerfrance (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Already there is consensus for the current header, see thread of May 30 below. Regards.--Darius (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy
The most successful box office success? Hmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.142.79.16 (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

El secreto de sus ojos → — MOS and Naming conventions (use English) state that the article should be under the English title.24.190.34.219 (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCF and WP:EN. NCF advises to "use the title more commonly recognized by English readers" and EN advises to "use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language." The film was released for English audiences under the title of The Secret in Their Eyes and many reliable sources exist to back this up . The film also won an Oscar under its English title. Cases such as this one are not controversial and there should be no concern if editors are bold and make the move without a discussion. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support too. There's no arguing the English title is searched more often in search engines than its Spanish title. Lhw1 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. The first version of this article, with the Spanish title, predates the US release of the movie, thus no 'official' English name of the film existed at that time. I guess 'The Secret in Their Eyes' is now a better option.--Darius (talk) 23:00, 3 June 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.

Movie interacts with "dirty war"
I just saw the movie, and it's pretty clear that the Argentine Dirty War is an important backdrop for several events in the movie, especially the release of Gomez and the killing of Sandoval and the attempted assassination of Esposito. In other words, these things wouldn't have ordinarily happened had the Argentine government and military not collaborated in political assassinations. I think the article needs to mention this backdrop, at least, with links to the Dirty War.--Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not the first person to mention this possibility and it seems like a great idea. There is a resonance in Argentina that the rest of the world may be deaf to. Will we find a careful analysis of the film's reflection of the period reality? It's not a true story, so to some extent the film has to speak for itself. Note that the dirty war is not mentioned explicitly in the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.cineaste.com/articles/emthe-secret-in-their-eyesem-historical-memory-production-models-and-the-foreign-film-oscar is good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Plot section needs work, lotsa work...
Saw this movie on DVD the other day, and found some parts confusing. Turned to trusted WP. Found Plot section in page here even more confusing. Want to change it but feel that maybe I am missing something. Am I suddently retarded, or was it gradual? Why does plot move from using first names to last without explanation? Why are crucial scenes like the violent death of Sandoval simply left out? Why is it so badly written? Do you want me to fix it up, or is it MEANT to be like this? Myles325a (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries often suffer the problem of too many cooks in the kitchen. Everyone edits them because it is easy to edit, so it gets bloated and trimmed cyclically. If you can provide a better draft (see WP:FILMPLOT for guidelines), go for it! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This plot summary is in good shape and has reached a comfortable consensus over a long period involving many editors. The page has been viewed at least 10,000 times this year and it all seems good. I think Erik did not check the facts. The reason for the shift from first names to last names reflects the way the story is told in the film. There is the film's "reality" and there is the novel the main character is writing (which is itself a retelling of the "real story"); the movie shifts its narrative baseline often -- that is part of the pleasure -- and the summary reflects that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Op myles325a back live. The plot is NOT good enough, it is confusing and badly written. It would barely get a pass mark from me for one of my students, and they are not writing for an encyclopedia. Those who think it is good enough obviously do not engage in reading material of any quality. I do not want to waste time making lists of everything that is wrong here, it would be easier to try to fix it instead. But we could start with the first three paragraphs:

When Benjamin's train starts to roll, Irene chases it down the tracks. She's left disconsolate as it leaves the station.

Retiree Benjamin Espósito is having trouble getting started on his first novel. He pays a visit to the offices of Judge Irene Menéndez-Hastings to inform her of his plans to tell the story of the Morales case, one they both worked on when she was his new department chief and he was the federal agent assigned to it. She suggests he start in the beginning. The beginning is the day a federal agent named Espósito is assigned to the rape and murder of Liliana Coloto, attacked in her home on a pretty June morning in 1974. Espósito promises her widowed husband, Ricardo Morales, that the killer will do life for his crime. His investigation is joined by his alcoholic friend and assistant Pablo Sandoval and the Cornell-educated Hastings...

In the first par, the main protagonist is called, simply, Benjamin and the woman is Irene.

In the second par, he is now “retiree Benjamin Espósito”, and the woman also now has a last name. Any reader will be confused by this, because he or she will not be aware that the writer is focusing on some movement between reality and Benjamin’s novel. And it gets worse:

In the third par, which appears to have little connection with the preceding one, there is a reference to “a federal agent named Espósito”. Once again, the reader will be confused. Ordinarily, when a character is named in one par, then when he needs to be referred to later, it is sufficient simply to use his first or last name. Instead, the reader must wonder why someone characterized as “retiree Benjamin Espósito” in the next breath becomes “a federal agent named Espósito”. The writer might be attempting to make some inroad into the mirroring of reality and a novelistic imagination here, but as this is not explained it simply becomes confusing.

I mentioned in my original post above that "the violent death of Sandoval [is] simply left out", even though Espósito is later described as grieving over it. This error is simply disregarded by Ring Cinema, both here and on his comment on my talk page, where he asks what I think is wrong with the plot summary, as if he had already forgotten or never read what I had written here.

Oh, and in English, the construction "pretty day" sounds pretty odd, something a non-native speaker might use. How's that for starters? Eric is on the money about bloated plot summaries (and the more b-grade the film, the more detailed the summary) but I don't think the mediocrity of this one is due to "too many cooks spoil the broth". I think this is the entrenched "I'm as good a writer as anyone here, and I cannot see what is deficient in anything I put together". There are literally hundreds of "writers" like this in WP, and the techies are the worst. They seem to think that any criticism to do with style and structure - and often even grammar - are the petty thoughts of some sissy, lilly-livered effete, and to be junked. The Plot details above are NOT worthy of WP, and should be changed - I don't care how many viewers have seen it.

Btw, how does Ring Circle know how many hits an article has had. They show this detail with other on-line encyclopedias (e.g. Conservapedia) but not here. It would be interesting to see the stats. Myles325a (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. I am totally open to improvements in the article. As I read your thoughts, you seem to be missing that, in the context of the film, the author of the novel and his character have the same name. Benjamin the writer and Esposito the character are not the same. There is the diegetic baseline and there is the character in the novel. The summary treats that as it is handled in the film, alternating between the two. The purpose of the summary is just to tell what happened in the film and I think it does that fairly well given the space limitations. If you have a better way to express this idea that the novel in the film and the film's reality share events in common -- but we're not told exactly which ones are identical -- then feel free. As it stands, Myles, I think we're doing well.


 * I'm not sure why you say the violent death of Sandoval is left out. It's there. ("when the two return they find the front door broken and Sandoval inside, shot to death with a submachine gun, apparently by Romano's hitmen".)


 * What I regret leaving out is the way he faked out the killers. It's just too complicated with these space limitations to explain all that. Maybe you have a clever idea on that.


 * Thanks again for your thoughts. I actually understated our recent visitors. I guess in the last month we've had about 18,000. One complaint is okay. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct spelling of surname
Actually a minor issue for me, but we should remember that the surname of the main character (i.e.: Espósito), although Italian by origin, is marked with an acute accent in Argentina. More than 1,000,000 results in Google search confirm that. See, for example Mariana Espósito.--Darius (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the authority in this case is the production itself. The film might not explicitly cover it, in which case there is the film's web site or the original screenplay. Common Argentine style is a backup position, as well, but I don't see the rationale for following a real world style. The character is in the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Try the movie's official website; if you read the synopsis, the surname is "Espósito".--Darius (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I knew of this site when I wrote the above. Sorry to make you chase it down. I have a small misgiving about importing a foreign diacritical mark into Wikipedia English but I guess this isn't really such a case. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The film jumps back and forth in chronology
That's a relevant, cited fact. Ring Cinema, why do you keep removing it? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your contribution. I appreciate the way you bring in the political element, which I have long thought the article should include. However, there is no reason to say the film "jumps". I am stating it with a little better style, in terms of the setting of the film. It has events from two times, that is the fact of the matter, and that's what we should say. This way we set aside the issue that the earlier material may or may not be part of the novel-in-progress. I'm sure you thought about the fact that one way to look at it is that it all "happens" in 2000 but some of it is in the head of the writer.
 * I would also mention that I find somewhat wanting the one sentence plot summary in that paragraph, which is not fair to the sophistication of the story technique. However, I think it's acceptable at least for now because this is the only place in the article where we touch on the political context; it's perhaps passable to emphasize the crime element above the relationship thread which is so important. It's all in the plot summary anyway.
 * Thanks again. I am interested in this article being as good as possible. Some give and take is good for that purpose. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your view that the flashbacks may or may not have actually happened is not backed up by any citations, as far as I know. The reviews I've seen all treat the 70s scenes as having actually happened. So your opinions seem like original research here. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Citations? I'm just pointing out it's a story with many layers. Again, thanks for your contribution. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If by "layers", you mean ambiguity as to what actually happened and what didn't, I disagree - and none of the reviews or other external sources seem to treat it that way either. You seem to be on your own with that one. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what it means. You are not familiar with the concept of a multi-layered narrative? I'll try to find a good article on it I can link you to. The subject of this article is a good example of such a story. If you do a simple Google search you will see how the concept of a layered narrative applies to this film in short order. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand what layers are, but what does that have to do with whether the film jumps back and forth in time? There are a variety of citations that say that it does. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There are citations that say any number of things that we don't have in the article. I agree that including the political context is good here. The plot devices they used -- and there are many in this multi-layered story, including alinear chronology -- are not germane to the subject of the paragraph: the political context in Argentina at the time. However, the fact that the film is about a crime might be germane when we mention the criminality, so it seems like an okay idea to mention it. Sadly, this summary of the plot is incomplete compared to the film's sophistication. But that can be corrected later. Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you don't think the "alinear chronology" is relevant in that paragraph, you should move it to somewhere else in the article, instead of deleting it entirely - surely it's relevant to an article about the film. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, there are many outstanding elements to the film that might deserve mention. Do you think this particular technique is of greater importance? The plot summary gives most of the story in film order, including dates, so that goes a long way toward covering the subject. But mentioning the Dirty War and the way it colors the narrative was sorely needed. I think you found the right spot for that. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think this technique is obviously important enough to mention specifically, as are any other out-of-the-ordinary aspects. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Departures from linear chronology are fairly common. From a story perspective, the most unusual aspect is the interaction between the novel-in-the-film and the film (This article in Hydra explicitly mentions the matter that I brought to your attention). This one, too, starts to break the ice on the narrative sophistication, although somewhat superficially. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, your modified text doesn't mention that, either. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to attempt to cover narrative techniques at this place in the article. It's a complicated subject with the multiple legitimate ways of framing it. Maybe it deserves its own section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine - until you do that, I think it makes sense to use wording more similar to my version's. Or is it your opinion that only out-of-the-ordinary facts should be mentioned in articles about movies? That seems insane to me - if that's the case, maybe we shouldn't mention that the film is a crime thriller, since there are plenty of crime thriller movies getting made. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would it make sense to make a mistake? No, your version imposes an interpretation on the material. That's not correct. We have the temporal aspect included, we have the Dirty War in there. We are in good shape. Thanks for your help. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an interpretation that's backed up by a citation from a reliable source. (Actually, more than one, if necessary.) That's the general standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently you have the incorrect idea that everything said in any reliable source is guaranteed a place in Wikipedia. That's not how it works. Especially since there is more than one way to interpret it, we don't interpret it. We have included the facts about the film's temporal aspect and now we leave it to the readers. Thanks a lot for moving on to something productive. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When there's more than one mainstream interpretation for something, you include all the interpretations - you don't deliberately ignore the issue altogether. I'll restore my edit; feel free to include that additional interpretation you were talking about, and maybe to make a new section out of it. And you're welcome. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're wrong. Now you're trying to impose your interpretation on the article. You are way, way out of bounds. Everyone gets edited here, including you. Since now you know that you were seriously mistaken in what you wrote originally, it's obvious that you should adjust your idea about your edit. Since you don't, I'm starting to see you as engaging in vandalism. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm engaged in vandalism for disagreeing with you on some edit? That's quite a statement to make; are you always this strange combination of flattering and abusive? And no, I don't "know" that I'm wrong. I'm curious, though - is anyone else reading this exchange, and have an opinion on the issue? An outside opinion may help to break the impasse. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're aware that your view is only one possible interpretation, so it's obvious your draft is not neutral. I've stated it neutrally, and that is correct. Check WP:NPOV if you are unclear on this. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

To say that the film jumps back and forth in time is hardly an "interpretation" - I'd say it's an accurate description regardless of whether the scenes set in the past were fictional or not. (And by the way, they coudn't have been that fictional, or else the big surprise ending wouldn't make any sense.) Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you're mistaken. It wouldn't be an interpretation if there was no other interpretation. However, others have been brought to your attention, so it could not be more clear. You, as a good faith editor, won't want to impose your interpretation (or your unfortunate style) on the article. Thanks for your contribution, but we have it in a neutral form right now. Get back to me if you have something new. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You didn't actually respond to my argument, which is that saying that the film jumps back and forth is accurate, regardless of whether or not the scenes from the 70s are fictional. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is correct as stated. Thanks for your contribution. I'm sorry I had to correct you on your style, but that is part of editing here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for a response. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and another thing: in your version, it states that "The film is set in Argentina during the Dirty War" - which is clearly not fully correct, since a lot of the film takes place in 2000. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You're not trying to improve the article. For some reason, you still want to impose your interpretation even after you've been corrected more than once. Sorry, that's not how it's done. Get back to me when you have something meaningful to contribute. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Now this is getting weird: you say I'm not trying to improve the article, right after making an edit that incorporates my comments. I'm going to have to assume that you're basically just going on auto-pilot here with the attacks. Anyway, your version of the article is improving, in my opinion, so that's good. Now it says that the film "covers the years 1974-75 and 2000". Why not just say "jumps back and forth between"? It's less of an awkward construction, and it clarifies that there's cross-cutting going on, as opposed to, say, the first half being set in one era and the second being set in the other. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve the article, that's why I made the change. That was my original proposal so I was glad you came around to my thinking. If you want to offer something, as you can see you'll be heard. Sorry your sense of encyclopedic style is not so good, but that's why we have more than one editor on these pages. Let me know when you have something new to contribute. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice to know that I'll "be heard". In that case, please respond to the thing I've been trying to get you to respond to, the last five times. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Already have. Anything new? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that a film that cuts back and forth between one (fully accurate) time period and another (mostly accurate) time period can't be described as "jumping back and forth"? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * fully accurate? what does that mean? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That the scenes set in 2000 reflect the reality of the film. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That has nothing to do with accuracy, though. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever term you want to use, then. Your point was that you can't say that the film jumps around in time because the scenes set in the past are novelistic and aren't necessarily exactly what happened; my point is that it doesn't matter. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have something to offer that I accept, too, then that's fine. At the moment, you're vandalizing the page and that's not good behavior. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting definition of vandalism: anything that you personally don't accept. You still, after all this time, haven't responded to my argument; you've claimed that you have, but you haven't. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not at all. You know your draft is not acceptable. Let me know if you have something to offer in the future. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I obviously don't know that. We have a difference of opinion, and if you don't engage in the actual discussion, this could turn into an endless edit war. Why not just respond to my arguments? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your language is not encyclopedic and imposes an interpretation. If you have something new to offer, let me know. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that this is taken to WP:RFC or Dispute resolution noticeboard. Too many reverts and rhetoric. The JPS talk to me  19:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with The JPS. Too many reverts over a mere rewording. IMHO, the cited source uses the term "flashback", thus this meaning should be reflected in the intro.--Darius (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my proposal takes a neutral stance. This article in Hydra explicitly mentions other interpretations. This one, too, starts to break the ice on the narrative sophistication, although somewhat superficially. So I am stating it neutrally, without imposing an interpretation. And, of course, films don't jump, so whatever language is chosen should try to find encyclopedic rhetoric. Is it a flashback? A depiction of the novel? This is ambiguous in the film and the article should at least avoid interpreting it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't have any particular stance on this. But, what makes those two sources worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? The JPS talk to me  21:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just like the source Korny offered, these are different interpretations of the film. Let it be noted that I have offered different drafts; Korny returns repeatedly to the same language. I've taken his good suggestions when he's made them. So I'm doing a good job of looking for consensus and maintaining a neutral point of view. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source Korny offered is a published newspaper. These two sources look like they are written by enthusiasts, not professionals. Like that source in Annie Hall, the writing might be promising, but the publication doesn't have any particular claim to WP:RS. The JPS talk to me  22:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think an effort to denigrate more serious writers is very serious on your part. There's definitely something insubstantial about a newspaper critic working on deadline. That my sources take a more serious view of the subject lends them a lot more credibility. Not that the papers should be ignored, but they don't necessarily take the time of more serious writers. The point is that there are different interpretations. The film doesn't answer it so neither should we. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * John, there are clear guidelines to what constitutes reliable sources. I have some sympathy with your thoughts on journalists (additionally, the imperative to be entertaining), but that's the way Wikipedia works. The alternative is peer-reviewed academic journal articles and books. But not self-published work, no matter how well-written or seemingly 'serious'. The JPS talk to me  10:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Per the advice, I just created an RFC (request for comment) section below on this topic. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not how Wikipedia works; we exercise our judgment. Reliable sources have mistakes, bad writing, unsupported assertions. Consider, for example, under what circumstances the unfortunate writer who describes this film as "jumping" would improve his laughable locution. Where would you find that? Second thoughts are not included. So, it is incumbent on us to think a little. There are myriad sources that mention the narrative complexity and ambiguity of the movie, sometimes with intelligence. Philip French's thoughts might interest you. And in any event, I'm not imposing my interpretation. I've offered neutral language and it's the only such effort at collaboration I've seen here, despite your misguided accusation of ownership. The fact is, there is an editor who insists on his way only, and it's not me. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just say that the lack of self-awareness here is impressive. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't bother reading French's review because I'm not particularly interested in this topic. But, as it is published on the website of a well-known respectable newspaper, that source is clearly adequate. French is also an established critic; some random off the internet is not. You talk about what is and is not inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Since when has the thoughts of a non-professional writing in a non-professional website been encyclopedic? The JPS talk to me  20:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if Hydra's writers are compensated, but what I find inappropriate is the professional's discussion of the film jumping. That's not encyclopedic language, so it doesn't matter who wrote it or what they were paid for it. And, of course, Korny mentioned explicitly that he wanted it included because it matched his interpretation of the film. I assume you are aware that is not how it goes here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No - what I said, several times, was that it was an accurate description regardless of one's interpretation. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true. You said, "it's an interpretation that's backed up by a citation from a reliable source." (17:45, 2 March 2012). I agree with you. So now we have neutral language, as we should, instead of an interpretation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said that, but then I changed my mind when I realized that the wording was accurate regardless. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your draft has a problem, though. I've offered at least two different drafts while you simply return to the same draft repeatedly. Let me know if you have something new to offer. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this is the same impasse we reached before - you saying that there's a problem without actually explaining the problem, etc. That's why we now have the request for comments. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there something new there? Because I don't see it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That comment didn't even make sense - now I can't tell if I'm talking to a human or some sort of auto-reply bot. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this film jump back and forth?
The film The Secret in Their Eyes has alternating scenes set in the 1970s and 2000. It is correct to say that the film jumps back and forth in time/chronology? At least one editor (see discussion above) says no, because the 1970s scenes are (or at least might be) part of a novel within the film. I say the description is correct, regardless of whether they're part of a novel. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Films don't jump, so that language is not right for an encyclopedia. I have tried to state the aspect of the film's non-linear chronology in neutral language that is appropriate for an encyclopedia and that does not impose an interpretation on the article. Instead of collaborating, the above editor has repeatedly changed the article to his original language that was rejected in part. I don't think this can be stated with any less of a point of view. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I would consider the scenes from 1970's to be part of an alternate story line. Two story lines happen during the film and come together at the end to show you the film's purpose. Thepoodlechef (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC).

Dirty War
WP has an article on the Dirty War. It doesn't seem to agree with the timeline mentioned in the recent edits, but perhaps there is a reason for that. I have long been in favor of bringing in this kind of material, but the article is about the film, not the Argentine political situation. Could we have a section devoted to this aspect? It seems that now we have at least one good source for that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Have in mind that one thing is the National Reorganization Process, the military government from 1976 to 1983, and another is the Dirty War, the war between the state and the leftist guerrillas. The worst of the war took place during the Process, but they are not one and the same: Montoneros began to operate in 1970, and they were finally defeated more or less in 1981 or 1982. Cambalachero (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, that is good to know. Does it affect the meaning of the film in some way? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the correct background is relevant to understand some key points of the plot, like Benjamín's exile, Romano's political influence and power, and why the killer becomes a presidential body guard. We should also avoid to mislead the reader into thinking that this is a movie set up during the Argentine military dictatorship.--Darius (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the plot can be understood on its own terms. The filmmakers are good story tellers and they did their job. But I agree that more context is fine if we can create a section for that purpose. (What to call it?) As for the dictatorship, we give the years and a link to the Dirty War. We don't mention the dictatorship. What could be misleading there? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But we mention the Dirty War, which took place during the dictatorship. Agree with your suggestion of a new section about the historical context. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, we mention the Dirty War. Why might that mislead about the movie's setting? Please be explicit about the problem; you know this subject better, so connections that you make are not going to be made by others. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, too long to explain here, but...Argentine history put more emphasis on the Dirty War than in the previous six or five years of violence (involving leftist guerrillas, far-right terrorism, political turmoil). There are even Madres de Plaza de Mayo who actually lost trace of their sons in 1975, during Isabel Martínez rule. The 1970-1975 period was actually a war without name, but political correctness in Argentina keeps this fact in darkness. One exception is "The Secret in Their Eyes". The "bad guys" are far-right Peronists and their hired hitmen, not the military. IMHO, this is one (just one) of the reasons for its success in Argentina. The movie's plot falls short of any explicit reference to the military dictatorship, although there are lots of hints. Another exception in cinema (sorry if a little off-topic) is the 1983 Funny Dirty Little War, which depicts the early 1970s as a civil war among Peronism. Someone could claim that this is a problem of sources, not a problem of Wikipedia, but we must fix it for the sake of accuracy.--Darius (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that "Secret..." is a rare case where the government criminality from pre-76 is depicted? So perhaps you are saying that the film does not depict life during the Dirty War? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the point: the Dirty War (as the respective article reads) began in 1976. Liliana Coloto's crime supposedly took place in 1974. Two years before. There are, however, some 'hints', as I said above; the brutal murder of Sandoval, the private army of Romano, Benjamín's forced exile, Gomez's and other suspects 'interrogation', if you want...but there is no mention of military involvement or forced dissapearences.--Darius (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to understand what difference it makes for the film and the article. Of course, first of all we want to be factual. Is there something else? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You got it right, the factual accuracy (WP:AD) of the article is compromised by both what the cited source says and the consequent misrepresentation of what the cited source says. The Cineaste Magazine liberally mixed up the Dirty War with the "Triple A" violence. There is an ideological relationship, no doubt of that, but they fell short of becoming tactical allies; several high-profile members of the Peronist far-right went to exile in 1976. The cited article, however, makes a clear-cut definition regarding the period in which the main plot is set: "The film employs as spectacle the universally acknowledged brutality of the most recent Argentine military dictatorship—part of the film depicts the predictatorship period of Isabel Perón’s brief government and the viciousness of its paramilitary apparatus, the continuity of which is acknowledged to extend beyond the subsequent coup d’état—while declining to explore in a productive way the currently pressing question of the memory of the dictatorship and its crimes." Although Matt Losada mentions the dictatorship as an appeal to the audiences ("the universally acknowledged brutality of the most recent Argentine military dictatorship") he establishes the scope of the movie during "the predictatorship period of Isabel Perón’s brief government". IMHO, the historical context section should be modified accordingly.--Darius (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See, this was bothering me. The source is in conflict with some of the facts. That is a problem for us here because we have to use the sources. Do you think there is a misrepresentation of what the source says? You think we are fitting the source around the facts? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We have to connect the political context to the film if we want to include it. We are not doing an article on the history of Argentina. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Political context not effective
I am reading this article to find out about the movie. I was glad to see a section titled "Political context": the political situation in Argentina at the time seems particularly relevant to this movie, since it takes place within a justice system that's obviously a lot different from ours here in the US. Unfortunately, this section fails to provide a meaningful context as it stands now. I'm going to copy it here:

That gives lots and lots and lots of facts about the Dirty War and related phenomena, but as I understand it, that took place between the two primary time periods in which this movie takes place, so all this section tells me is what happened between those two time periods.

It would be more useful to a reader of this article to tell what was going on politically in Argentina during those two time periods, not between them. The section does give a little bit of useful information about the movie's earlier setting, in the middle 70s, but that little bit of information is immediately swamped by far too much information about the subsequent Dirty War, and at the end of the section the reader is left even more puzzled about the political context of the movie.

I'm not saying that an abundance of detail about the Dirty War, etc, is not important information with regard to the history of Argentina, but its relevance to this movie is marginal at best (giving some idea what the characters had been through during the years the movie skips over). Having it be the bulk of the information given as this movie's context – especially the current second paragraph, with its overwhelming barrage of statistics and footnotes on who was murdered and how many and by whom – leaves the reader (me) reeling, more confused about the movie's actual political context than before he read it.

The period that probably most needs to have its political context elucidated is the earlier period. The article tells me that that was during "the presidency of Isabel Martínez", and the first three sentences relate the useful information that it was a time of political turmoil. I think the section should stop there, so that it reads something like: That preserves everything that is relevant to the movie without overwhelming the reader (who is a movie fan, remember, not a history student) with a lot of irrelevant (to the movie) and highly detailed numbers and footnotes. Those who want to know more can follow the links to the articles on Martínez and the War. Something like that would be more helpful to me, as a WP reader looking for information about this movie.

If I had come across that in the "Political context" section, I would have been grateful for it. All the reader needs in the way of context is a very brief outline of what was going on in Argentina at the time of the story, not a fully detailed and documented account of the Dirty War, with heaps of numbers and footnotes.

This is an article about a movie – this is not the place to hash out all the atrocities perpetrated by Argentina's various political factions. But having seen the whirlwind of controversy and emotion earlier on this page, addressing the same issue but from a somewhat different perspective, I will not do anything at all to the article. I'll just leave my ideas about it here in case they're useful to anyone else.--Jim10701 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The film cuts back and forth in time
Here we go again. I've long thought that this article should indicate that The Secret in Their Eyes jumps, or cuts, or whatever you want to call it, back and forth between the two time periods that it covers; as opposed to telling the story chronologically, with the first half set in the 1970s and the second in 2000. This is an integral aspect of the film, in my opinion. There was an argument about it before with Ring Cinema that went nowhere; I just re-added this information recently, this time with a citation from this review in The Observer, which states that "The movie then proceeds with immense narrative skill to cut between past, present, fictionalised memories, plausible conjecture and unverifiable accounts". Once again, Ring Cinema removed the offending statement, rendering the article once again, in my opinion, less informative. So, what's the deal - why remove this important piece of information? And does anyone else here agree with either me or Ring Cinema? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the story is a delight, so you certainly have my agreement on that. However, the idea of telling a story in a non-linear, non-chronological way is very old and very common. D.W. Griffith thought of it for Intolerance (1916) almost a century ago. The Mahabharata similarly used the technique about 2500 years ago. There are countless examples. However, I don't believe our thinking is far apart at all. If you think this technique must be elucidated for an understanding or appreciation of the film, I would suggest you include it later in the article. Then we would be on the same page about improving the page, which I am sure is your aim as well as mine. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I... never said the story was a delight. Anyway, so your thinking is that this fact shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction because it's not a big deal; there are many movies that this is true of. So, let me present a question (and apologies in that we may have gone over this before): the very first sentence of the article states that this film is a crime thriller. But there are many crime thriller films out there - many more than films that employ this non-linear technique. So why should that fact be mentioned prominently either? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So you are taking the position that every trivial fact about every movie actually belongs in the first section? I don't think that makes sense. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned already that if you want this aspect included more explicitly than the plot summary affords, find a place for it in a later section. It's a pretty simple compromise. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to be precise here: I think you're confusing between the concepts of "trivial" and "common". To take some examples: the fact that a film is a crime thriller is common, but not trivial. On the other hand, the fact that most of the people in a movie are wearing jeans is common, and trivial. But the fact that a movie has exactly 2,591 instances of the word "the" is uncommon, and trivial. Would you agree with that? If so, I hope you'll see that you need another argument as to why this piece of information is trivial, other than the fact that it's true of many other movies. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't need another argument. Technical aspects of filmmaking, sometimes even if they are striking and innovative, aren't material for the first section. This storytelling technique, extremely common, not remotely new, yet of special interest to you, might merit inclusion in the appropriate section. Even that is dubious but I would be sympathetic to it for the purpose of accommodating your view. I think your time would be better spent fixing the section on political context, which is a lot more interesting and unique to this film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying it's not common, I'm saying it's important when describing the film. Anyway, I did a little research, and the following films all have articles that currently mention their non-linear nature in the introduction: Hiroshima mon amour, Last Year at Marienbad, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Mulholland Drive. Would all of these articles be improved if this information were removed from the intro? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. If you want to incorporate this technical matter in a later section, that seems like a reasonable way to handle it. This technique is not central to an understanding or appreciation of the film. Rather, it was what they had to do to tell the story. As it is, it seems that we succinctly cover the essential nature of the narrative, as we should do. Many techniques of the filmmakers are not mentioned, and for good reason. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think we've finally hit the crux of the issue: I think this technique is central to an understanding of the film. I went to the Rotten Tomatoes page for this film, and clicked on the top six reviews - and as it turns out, all six mention that it cuts back and forth, most of them right near the top. You can see the reviews here:      Isn't that pretty good evidence that this is an important aspect of the film? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your sources confirm my good judgment. Thanks for including them. If you want to mention the technique in a later section, give it a try. No promises I'll accept it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify in what way these sources confirm your judgment, as opposed to, say, completely contradicting it? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that we should mention the story is set in separate times a quarter century apart, and the sources agree. Is that what you're talking about? --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I'm talking about the fact that there's a non-linear narrative. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The first source you list mentions "naff music, heavily filtered camerawork and a theme of romantic longing spanning 25 years" before mentioning another technical element. The music, camerawork, and story techniques might all deserve mention in the appropriate section. Note the way we handled the special shot in the stadium, which is another significant technical matter. The plot summary shows the story technique explicitly but I could see more attention paid to it in a later section if it is done right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the non-linear thing is mentioned rather prominently in every review. If every one of these reviews had mentioned the film's "naff music", then I would think that's pretty good evidence that it's an important element of the film, and deserves mention in the intro. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are exaggerating, and you cherry picked those few reviews besides. The first cherry picked review supports my thinking explicitly. And I have to add that not everything said about every film in every review belongs in the lead section of film articles, an inference implicit in your recent posts. Nonetheless, I am pretty sure this would be welcome in a later section if it is handled well. I'm sorry that I can't agree with you, but I think I have come up with a reasonable compromise. Please take me up on it. I would be fascinated to see if you could formulate a true sentence or two based on your thesis. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely did not cherry-pick those reviews; I picked the top six reviews (Rotten Tomatoes tends to put the most important critics at the top), and didn't look at any of the others. And your phrasing of "everything said about every film in every review" is ambiguous, but what I would say is, if every review of a film (even the short ones) mentions fact X, then chances are good that it's an essential aspect of that film, and should be mentioned in the intro. Or do you think your personal opinion is more relevant that professional critics'? And no, I don't think your compromise is reasonable. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The reviews you cited support my view, not yours. I have suggested an excellent compromise, and you have offered none. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In what way do those reviews support your view? I asked you that before, but you didn't actually answer. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did answer. See April 11. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm looking through what you wrote on that date, and I don't see anything that actually answered that question. Could you repeat it? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why should I repeat what you just read? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because I think nothing you said answered my question. You just noted that one of the reviewers mentioned "naff music". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect and incomplete. Which of my responses would you like me to repeat? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The one that you think successfully backed up your viewpoint. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources don't back your claim so what else is there to say. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, here's the basic deal: I think that the non-linear narrative is an integral aspect of the film. Then I showed that seemingly every major review of the film mentions this non-linear aspect. If that's not proof that it's integral to the film, I don't know what would be. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that second paragraph of the lead section talks about a double setting, I think it is reasonable to briefly elaborate (using The Observer) about the narrative, for a start. I have not surveyed all the sources about this film, but if the narrative is frequently noticed in reviews, more could be said in the "Reception" section. There could also be coverage out there that could belong in the "Production" section in terms of cutting back and forth. If you need additional opinions about this matter, you can post a notice at WT:FILM. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggested covering this matter in a later section, which is a good way to handle it. Routine technical matters like this just don't belong in the first section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I wish Erik had been a little clearer in his statement, but it does seem like he's advocating mentioning it in both locations: briefly in the intro, and then additionally in later sections. Which I fully agree with. Ring Cinema - as I noted before, "technical matters" like this are covered rather frequently in article introductions. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, not. It seems that the reception section could include more extensive material on this and then everyone would be happy. All you have done is insist on abandoning the consensus you were a party to last time. Instead, seek a solution that satisfies everyone, as I have done. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not what? Also, I don't know why you keep bringing up the word "consensus" - there has never been a stated consensus for either my version or yours. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. You were involved in the discussion on this the last time and we arrived at the stable compromise that was in place some months. That was a consensus and you were involved in reaching it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was stable, but it wasn't a compromise - I just gave up and moved on to other things. And even if I had agreed to whatever the end result was (which I hadn't), surely consensus means more than just two people agreeing on something? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand how consensus works, how can you pretend your opinion is anything other than your wish list? Like before, you're just stubbornly insisting your way is the only way. You were mistaken before about the nature of the narrative and never really admitted you got that wrong. Since you didn't say you were wrong, does that mean you still don't recognize you were wrong? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How does consensus work, in your opinion? And no, I don't "recognize" that I was wrong. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for an answer. And where exactly was I wrong? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Repeating is a waste. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You mean, you're realizing that I had the better argument? It's okay, there's no shame in that. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You're wrong and you don't want to admit it. Sorry. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know what you think I'm wrong about. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no consensus for your changes at this time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for never answering any of my questions. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Section break
I posted a notice at WT:FILM informing others about the need for additional input here. Feel free to summarize the points and counterpoints below. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Technical matters of filmmaking should be covered in a later section than the lede and this is no exception. This matter was discussed last year and a compromise was agreed to that the current editors were a party to. This discussion is at a standstill because there is nothing more to discuss. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If the structure of the film isn't covered in the main body then its relevance to the article hasn't really been established. It's the sort of thing that would ideally be covered in context. For example, I wrote the lede for Don't Look Now where I do mention the non-linear narrative, but the thematic importance and influence of how the film is edited together is covered fairly substantially in the main body of the article. If the film's editing is discussed in the article and accompanied by sourced commentary then it is analysis, if you are just stating it has an non-linear structure for the sake of it, then it is more or less trivia. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it trivia even if that information is mentioned in just about every review of the film? That's the case here. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is trivia until it becomes a substantive part of the article. If just about every review of the film addresses its structure then that would be included in a critical reception section, and depending on its prominence may warrant mention within the context of the film's reception when covering reception in the lede. Another article that covers this well is Memento (film). Betty Logan (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've searched for retrospective academic coverage about the film, and while I found some (like this), I did not see any discussion about the narrative. As Ring Cinema said, it is a common trope. I like Betty's suggestion to expand the reception section to lend context to the narrative as well as other elements, especially since that section is solely lacking in such depth. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright; there you have it. I still think the explanation of the film could benefit from this little bit of extra information, but clearly I've been outvoted. Thanks for weighing in, and it's a pleasure to talk with civilized people. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Contentious editing on incorrect sentence
"The double settings frame the period of Argentina's Dirty War (1976–1983), a violent time when criminality often went unpunished" No. This just does not make sense for readers. I have attempted to fix this in the least possible change way and i am being reverted repeatedly. i was willing to take the word "double' out and say, "includes the period", but no, even that is apparently contentious? It does not make sense.Housewifehader (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing to fix. The text states the matter precisely and accurately. It means what it says and it says what it means. Nothing to correct. I am surprised that you would attempt to "fix" something when you don't know what you're talking about. Please desist from that behavior, as it is not good to introduce errors into the articles. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What I am talking about is where is the "double" in that sentence? Just because I think that the sentence is incomprehensible does not mean that i do not know what i am talking-about. I am talking about clarity and making it less-confusing for readers.Housewifehader (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What about saying "two timelines" instead? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The editor questioning this doesn't know what she's writing about. She has done nothing but introduce errors into the text with literally every edit. The confusion is not in the text, it's somewhere else. Since this section was recently the subject of discussion, and since the new editor is introducing nothing new, I'd suggest we stick with the current consensus which has been well-reviewed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ring Cinema, you are being unduly harsh here. Please remember Wikipedia's policy of civility and not to be so dismissive of another editor. Why can we not replace "double setting" with "two timelines", if the former is bound to be unclear to some readers? In regard to the other changes, I agree that the dash is appropriate for the years. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Two timelines" would still confuse a reader in that sentence because the sentence only refers to one timeline. That is my problem with, and why I tried to fix it. Even looking at the entire paragraph, or lede, that sentence just stopped me in my tracks as a reader because I was waiting for the "other" timeline to be mentioned. That's why I tried to re-word it so that one sentence would not mention two time periods, but then only talk about one. Yes, the dash belongs. My mistake there was thinking that the editor meant 1983 AND 1976. I thought "they" were the "two" or the editor was trying to say that-(they were not). I think what i am ultimately saying is that the sentence could be ungrammatically correct and for that reason it is confusing. When you speak of two, "double", and then only speak of a singular, does the subject agree with the predicate? Housewifehader (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And as for introducing errors into the article, that statement is completely false. If I did add any errors for a minute or so, I was in-the-middle of editing the article and no, I did not leave any errors in the article when I was finished. Readers should not have to know the entire tendentious editing history of an article just to try and figure-out what is being said.Although while i was editing I did try to take that into consideration Housewifehader (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * RC-please provide an example of what "error" you think that I left in the article?Housewifehader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing, "The double settings frame the period of Argentina's Dirty War (1976–1983), a violent time when criminality often went unpunished"" to; "The period of Argentina's Dirty War (1976–1983), a violent time when criminality often went unpunished, is highlighted as well." makes more sense to me as it is just a grammatical problem that I am having but I am aware that compromises have been made. Taking the timeline out of that sentence serves it, and the lede much better imo. Housewifehader (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Every time you edited you introduced an error. So, all of your edits are examples, since all of them changed a true statement to false. You don't know the dates of the Dirty War but you were comfortable changing that. Sorry, but I really don't understand your motivation here. You don't know the facts. Since you don't know them, you can't evaluate the article. That you don't know this even now does not set your opinion to a greater store. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That is incorrect and the only reason that I left the error about the date, (substituting "and" for "-"(to), is because I misunderstood what your problem was with that edit. I now understand that it is an article ownership problem in my opinion. The problem with the lede paragraph and that sentence in particular, is a result of your ownership problem with the article since we are posting personal opinions here. If you would please release the grip that you have with this article (159 edits/reverts and prob. most were GF not vandalism)-maybe someone such as myself as a reader would not have had to try and decipher the convoluted way that the content is presented there. I came upon this article as a reader and due to your heavy-handed approach with this article, it was in a state of confusion. Why not allow other editors to work on it if they are not vandalizing and not leaving errors? You reverted every edit that I worked on, not for reason of error for reason of wanting the article to be how you want it to be, Yes I made an error, but that was after I tried to fix that sentence several times so that it would not be grammatically incorrect. Why do you have to be so married to, "The double settings frame"? That was what threw me off, and if you would have left alone my previous attempts to delete that one confusing phrase, I would not have misunderstood whatever it was that I thought that you were trying to do there.Housewifehader (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And, just for the record, just because some editors agreed on how they wanted the introduction presented, I happen to agree that a previous version, "The film jumps back and forth between the years 1974-75 and 2000"of which the "owner" of this article clearly had an opinion, and which was deleted by said article owner with insults. In my opinion, "film jumps back and forth", was fine and preferable to the enigmatic ""The double settings frame"" I even like, "film jumps back and forth" between "two timelines"......but this is just a continuing campaign to keep one version, the one that in my opinion is confusing to readers, with no further changes. I never tried to delete mention of your Dirty War, and it was taken out of the plot section because it was more alluded-to---yes I saw that, but even-though there were compromises made for good reasons, that does not mean that the final product, (the article), was understandable. I specifically left "Dirty War" in the lede, as per the Talk Page discussion. All I tried to do was clear-up how the Dirty War was mentioned in that paragraph/sentence, because using the word "double", when you are really talking-about three eras is not fair to readers. Housewifehader (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Housewifehader (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The story recounts a 1974 rape and murder that cast a spell on the victim's husband and the killer, and its aftermath in 2000 of the buried feelings between a pair of judiciary professionals who worked the case together.[Argentina's Dirty War (1976–1983)], a violent time when criminality often went unpunished, occurred between the double-settings used in the film. ............I believe this would solve the issue.Housewifehader (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you introduced an error for no reason but that you didn't know it was incorrect. And that's basically what you did in all of your edits. Thanks for your interest, but there's nothing that needs solving and if there was it should be handled by those of us who know what the facts are. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Ring Cinema - check out the Ownership of articles guideline, if you've never read it. It feels like a lot of that page was written with your exact behavior in mind. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're incorrect. Errors don't belong in the article and that's what we are talking about here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not to get re-involved, and I don't actually know what errors you're talking about (and based on your previous M.O., my guess is that you'll never say what the "errors" are), but, judging from the talk page, no one seems to consider these things errors other than you. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So you're admitting that you're making accusations without any facts. Agreed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The "accusations" I was making were about your behavior, about which I have plenty of facts. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * When you claim that I "introduced an error for no reason but that you didn't know it was incorrect."---actually, no that is not true and I already mentioned, and you should know why i "introduced" that particular error, is because after my initial edit(s), which you reverted, I mis-understood your remarks in the edit-summary. Sorry for repeating this but despite your assumptions about why I edited in error, (and the only edit that could legit be called, "error" was the one that your comments lead me to make).......I am also trying to tell you that your assumptions that WP Readers understand your way, over anyone else's way, is incorrect as well. And by the way RC, you are just being silly if you are claiming that my suggestion about using " ...a violent time when criminality often went unpunished, occurred between the double-settings used in the film." is an error. I find it a big waste of time that you are unwilling to discuss specifics, which is what led to my misunderstanding/error, (after trying to communicate exactly what my problem was) .Housewifehader (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And, RC--if you do not intend on addressing your refusal to acknowledge the fact that at least one reader-(myself), was confused by, "The Double settings frame", or if you continue to refuse to explain why changing that would be an "error"-(which it would not be), then really there is no point continuing to insult people here.Housewifehader (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What are some other ways we can word it? I thought "two timelines" would suffice because the film cuts between them. We could even just say "two settings". The word "frame" seems fine to me, but "bookend" is another possibility. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Bookend' is a problem metaphor since the content is not the Dirty War (between the bookends) but what came before and after it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I like "bookend" much better than "frame", but the problem for me is the way the sentence was worded, is that only the one era was discussed, (the Dirty War)-which was not really one of the "two/double" settings in the film anyways.--- The whole construction of that paragraph looks like it was the result of not wanting to mention a main part of the way that the story was told (a narrative switch/ "jumpy"), because of some arguments further-up the talk page, (with two settings being the novel era from the murder in 1974, and the aftermath in the 2000's)---and The Dirty War and its date (1976–1983) was minced into that paragraph that (barely) refers-to actually "three"-settings. Also it is an attempt to mention the Dirty War, and its dates, in the lede, since it was not explained in the film plot. So after a person thinks about the sentence that stopped me there--that the "before", (the murder/rape "novel" setting), and the "after"-(re-investigating the crime, writing the novel, reunion, set in the 2000's )---being the "double settings".........and the Dirty War(1976–1983) being between the settings used in the film, the entire sentence does make some sense. But I had to get to that point by way of reading the talk page discussion, asking why three settings are mentioned as "one" in that sentence bla bla bla. At this point I may have looked at it too much to even really say if it makes sense on a first reading but it was obvious when I came to the talk page that other editors had questions about the way that the lede was worded and the timeline, and narrative device. It is possible that substituting, "bookend" for the word, "frame" in that sentence will make it more readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housewifehader (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the problem is trying to shoehorn the Dirty War into the lede in the first place, since it's not in the movie but is just contextual. But the Argentines who contributed thought it was important. I'm satisfied with it now. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusing plot
I've read through this plot twice and it is still not clear to me what story is the story told in the novel and what is depicted as "really happening". I understand that in the film, the timeline might jump from the past to the present but I would guess it is eventually revealed what the true ending was, if Gomez was the murderer or if it was this nameless person mentioned that Romano let go free. I know that on Wikipedia plot summaries don't include all of the details but it should be possible to be able to distinguish between the story within the story and the story itself. Liz Read! Talk! 14:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on The Secret in Their Eyes. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mundoandino.com/Argentina/Eduardo-Blanco-actor
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elamante.com/content/view/2305/1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Historical and political context
The newly added "Historical and political context" is poorly written and heavily into pushing a POV. We all get it that crimes against humanity were committed during the Dirty War, but terms like "genocide" are over the top. The section should be removed or heavily pruned to focus only on history as it explicitly relates to the movie. I'm providing fair warning here, and any revert-warring will be referred to WP:ANI. GetSomeUtah (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)