Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/The Searchers (film)

The Searchers (film)
I am nominating this for Stillstudying, who is interested in improving this film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In line with suggestions from Erik, and in reading the guidelines, I believe a "Critical Interpretations" section would be very helpful for readers who are not familiar with the more controversial themes in The Searchers. I would appreciate imput from editors more experienced than myself, and would welcome everyone's thoughts before I attempt myself to add such a section. My long-term goal is to raise this article to be a GA at least. The movie is truly a great one, one of the all-time classics, and warrants a better article. I also thank Erik for his help (as I did not know how to post this!) Stillstudying 13:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Erik
These are my suggestions for now; there's obviously plenty to do. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The first issue for this article are the use of non-free images. Images, especially the non-free kind, need to be more than decoration for the article.  Considering this is a film whose themes and cinematic style has been commented on by many, it would be best to remove the seemingly decorative images and create prose to describe the themes/style.  Off the top of my head, I recall that the framing of the Western background through a door from the inside was thematically significant.  If prose can be provided, a shot of this cinematic style would be warranted.  I would suggest checking out Non-free content to understand how to implement such images.
 * For Themes, I would suggest using more academic resources (like the ones I listed on the article's talk page) to cover the themes of the film. The current references are rather simple reviews, and I believe that using in-depth critical interpretations from those with film studies backgrounds would be much stronger attribution.
 * For Cast, I would suggest using an Actor as Character format followed by a brief description of the character, as well as any information about how that particular actor was cast or how he or she portrayed his/her role. I would not be surprised if there was some controversy over the Native American casting, considering their depictions in the film.
 * I would suggest removing the Release section because a list of release dates is indiscriminate and does not serve much encyclopedic value. If there was a reason for the selection of dates for territories outside of the United States, then it may warrant a mention.  For example, Spider-Man 3 was released in China before the United States in order to circumvent piracy.
 * For Reception, I would suggest starting off with a prose paragraph. Perhaps a list of recognitions would be warranted, but ideally, prose should be attempted before a list.
 * For Influence, there needs to be attribution about the influence of The Searchers on succeeding films. The Star Wars and Dominion mentions seem to be original research and should be backed by a secondary source.
 * I would suggest a Critical reaction section, both citing reviews given at the time and contemporary reviews, to reflect any change of opinion in the process.

Comments by Stillstudying

 * I agree with all the above.

Personally, i would prefer to have consensus before the rewrite begins. Does anyone else wish to do the rewrite? I am willing to do so, but again, would like consensus that the type of changes Erik suggests, which I agree with, are the view of the majority of editors. That way we can avoid a great many reverts! Stillstudying 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On images, we do need to use those in the public realm which have great symbolic importance. For instance, as to the image of Ethan standing in the door, offhand I cannot remember the source, (but I will find it!) but a number of critics have suggested the symbolism is that Ethan is the eternal outsider, and having returned Debbie to civilization, stands alone in the door, and walks into the wild, symbolizing that his task being done, he is not part of the civilization he ostensibly champions. Still others suggest his blatant racism and hatred for practically everyone figures in his standing in the door, and walking away, as not belonging anywhere. Obviously this is a tremendously important image, and needs more explanation for those not familiar with the movie and it's symbolism.
 * As to using academic sources, I would add that we have many critical reviewers who make very deep examinations of the issues Ford approached so gingerly in this movie. I agree with Erik that we need to use those, such as Brenton Priestley's explosive "Race, Racism and the Fear of Miscegenation."
 * We do need to completely revamp the cast section, with an explanation of what the role of each is in terms of the symbolism of the movie. For instance, several characters are simply there for comic relief.  Whether that was because Ford was afraid otherwise the movie would be unbearably bleak is a subject we can discuss, citing respectable scholars.


 * I think that your plan for improvement will be much stronger than anything that has come before for this article. I would suggesting being bold in making the changes; they can only benefit the article, I'm sure.  (And if anyone attempts to add a Trivia section, remove it and kindly point them at WP:AVTRIV.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Erik I will give this a couple of days, and then begin being being bold in making the changes. I think your suggestions are outstanding, and I will start, (if no one else more experienced comes along and wants to do it, or has good reasons we should not), with revamping the introduction, and the cast, while similtanously removing the images that have no meaning, while replacing them with those that do, along with an explanation for why they are there.  I am going to work today and tomorrow on these changes, and again, waiting for input here, will begin a wholesale revamp based on what we have discussed, late tomorrow.  I really appreciate your support.  I strongly feel this is a genuine classic that has been badly served by our article, and that needs to change.  Stillstudying 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Erik I would really appreciate your and Alien's input on the new section I just added. I was extremely careful - I worked a large part of the night on this! - to source everything and try to avoid anything super controversial, and stick to accepted language.  I would really appreciate your evaluation on that new section and the updates on the cast, added language on the characters.  If this is acceptable, I plan to work on the Production section next, and then finally delete meaningless pictures and add ones with great meaning - like him standing in the door! - with an explanation of why they are important.  Your help is really appreciated! Stillstudying 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comments by Erik
Looks like you've put some serious work into it! A few formatting notes:
 * For section titles, only the first letter should be capitalized, unless a later word is proper. So basically, Critical Interpretations → Critical interpretations
 * There should not be any spacing between a sentence's punctuation and the reference.
 * Try to use the Cite web, Cite news, and the Cite journal templates for your references. This provides easy, organized reading of the references.
 * The format of a film title in the content should just be with italics, with no quotation marks needed. So basically, "The Searchers" → The Searchers
 * It seems that the "Real-life inspiration" section should become part of The Searchers (novel) since the source material and its film adaptation are not always the same. What should be noted, though, is if the adaptation was faithful, or what changes John Ford made to the story.  This should be done with independent, attributable sources instead of personal observations, which is original research.
 * The Themes section could be merged into the Critical interpretations section. Try to see if you can subsection different critical interpretations, such as Racism and Characterization.  Not sure what more there are.  Obviously, with so much critical coverage of this film, this shouldn't be the end of it.
 * For Cast, try to format it like below:
 * John Wayne as Ethan Edwards: A Confederate veteran of the American Civil War who comes to see his brother's family after being gone for three years. (Add detail about Wayne's casting or portrayal here, with attribution.)

Good luck with the Production section! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest just going ahead and removing the images now. They don't serve any purpose for the article besides being decorative.
 * In Critical interpretations, I would suggest that you re-read what you wrote and try to edit the content to have a more neutral tone. Some of the sentences sound casually written when they should be more formal.  An example is, "This horrible outburst made clear that..." and could be rewritten not to use the word "horrible" and something more encyclopedic than "made clear".  Hope you understand the suggestions I've made.


 * Erik (talk • contrib Thanks, and I will get started...Stillstudying 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Erik (talk • contrib Thanks for your help, and I would appreciate your checking out the new sections, (I took your advice and incorporated the theme section into critial interpretations, and subdivided. I also took your advice and deleted the pictures, and worked more on the character descriptions and the production section.  I am gone for a few hours, but would appreciate your evaluation of the work on the article so far...) thanks again.Stillstudying 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Comments by Stillstudying

 * Monkeyzpop To Monkey, I moved your assertation that the strongest motivator for Ethan is his love for his brother's wife to where it properly should be, to the "plot" section - This is discussed by many reviewers as underlying emotion throughout the movie, but it hardly stands as a "theme" in the sense Ford's examination of racism does! While I may agree iwth you - I do think he may well be in love with her, please, whether or not Ethan's character was in love with his brother's wife is a plot twist not a grand theme in the movie.  What "theme" would you maintain this shows?  Racism is an obvious and incredibly powerful theme for the movie, but love for your brother's wife as a theme?  I am not trying to be cruel, but surely you see the problem, not only is this not a theme in the sense of an underlying socio-cultural more, it isn't even certain.  The question of Ethan's feelings for his brother's wife has been debated considerably for the last 41 years.  For every source you cite that claims this as a theme, others do not.  Schneider, for instance, doesn't even consider it worthy of discussing in the same context as the giant themes of hatred and racism.   Morever, you miscite your sources - they do discuss the underlying question of whether Ethan loved his brother's wife, but again, this is simply not a socio-cultural theme in the same league with racism!


 * So I moved this entire mess to "plot" which is where it belongs. I also set to work to correct a number of other things you deleted or changed improperly.   For instance, the opening should be 3 paragraphs, and you deleted an outstanding quote by Schneider which explains why the movie is not really from the book, but from real life.


 * Finally, while I hope we can resolve our differences without an edit war, your swift reverting and the way you did so, without discussion - we do have a peer review going on, that you did not bother to post any of your proposed changes - I would remind you of the 3 edit rule. If you change this 3 times in 24 hours, you should be suspended. I will revert as I have to, unless a majority discusses these issues, and you have consensus for your changes - which I don't believe you have.  I have asked others for their input, and will wait on consensus, in the interim, you have reverted twice in 24 hours, a third time warrants suspension.  Stillstudying 11:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just noticed your edit summary comment when you reverted me, "What do you think we have peer review for?" It should be noted that nowhere on the main article page nor on the page that comes up for editing the main article does it say a peer review is under way.  How is one to know that without a notice on either the article page or the editing page? Monkeyzpop 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Comments by Monkeyzpop
I have done my best to eliminate original research from my submissions and have cited where proper. Notwithstanding, having studied this film for forty years, written about it, been published on the topic, interviewed many of the players and crew, and collected possibly the largest private collection of material relating to the film, I obviously have some sense of awareness of the film and its background, themes, and the critical responses it has gotten over the years. Forgive me if I am not as fully confident in your take on things, especially as simple matters such as grammar, spelling, and formatting cause you some difficulty. This is not an insult, rather an observation that one's first look at your submissions makes one wonder how strong your academic credentials are. But that's not as important as reaching a clear-cut encyclopedic version for Wikipedia of what this film is and what the responses to it are. Let's take some of your objections one at a time. But first: let me apologize about the three-revert rule. I was thinking of reverting the material on this page in one fell swoop, but found it physically easier to do it section by section. If I'd done it all as one revert, I'd have not broken the 3RR. I forgot about that. Sorry. (I do note that you, Stillstudying, edited the same page 23 times within 48 hours, a clear and pretty large violation of 3RR itself. ;-) ) Now on to your objections.  You've asked for peer review.  That's fine.  But peer review does not mean no one can edit a page without "permission" or consensus.  It just means you're asking for and (hopefully) receiving commentary.  Some of the peer review comments about my submissions make sense to me.  Others don't.  But the first "rule" of Wikipedia, the one that is trumpeted loudly whenever someone new comes aboard, is "If you don't want your material edited brutally, don't submit it."  ANYONE can edit a page, whether that page is under peer review or controversy.  So I'm sorry if you're unhappy that someone has "edited your material brutally" but there's nothing wrong with that, not by my reading of the rules of Wikipedia.  Next:  the fact that John Ford "never talked" about Ethan's love for Martha is both wrong and irrelevant. He certainly talks about it -- on-camera! -- in Bogdanovich's Directed by John Ford, but the main point is that Ford doesn't have to be on record talking about something for it to be relevant to the article. As you will note, I referenced about eight different citations regarding the Ethan/Martha love and how it is the unspoken but driving force of the story. That takes nothing away from the racism theme; in fact, it's absolutely interwoven into it and inextricable from the racism theme: Ethan loves Martha, already-hated Indians kill Martha and steal her child, Ethan seeks revenge  for Martha, rescue for her child, and then purifying death for the child once Indians have defiled it. The fact that the love between Ethan and Martha has been a topic of scholarly discussion for fifty years is both verifiable and notable. To discard it shows a comparative unfamiliarity with the film's historical analysis and criticism. It's like throwing out all references to outer space in an article on Star Wars just because no one actually says "outer space" in the movie. Next: some of the items I deleted were deleted only because you say them in almost identical words three, four, or five times. In the case of these repetitive items, I did not delete all of them, just the redundant one or misplaced ones. I'm under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think anyone who would dare change what you wrote must be wrong or deliberately interfering. I assure you I am not deliberately interfering, and in this case I don't believe I'm wrong. I've been a published author for many, many years, and before that an English composition teacher. That doesn't make me God, but it makes me fairly well credentialed to critique writing style. I appreciate your efforts, and some of your points are quite wonderful. But your writing style can use some help, and I have tried to help (not so much help you as to help Wikipedia, which to be trustworthy should at least be as well-written as possible). Next: I've spent a lot of time with the LeMay book, and while it differs from the film in notable ways, to say that it "does not resemble the movie at all," as you did, is to ignore willfully what is in the book. Of course the book resembles the film: it has the same characters. It has the same locale. It has the same basic plotline of loss and rescue. These are resemblances! Even if the book takes liberties or detours from the detail of the novel, to say there is no resemblance is demonstrably erroneous. The fact, and I bow to your research on this, that the filmed version may indeed resemble MORE CLOSELY the Cynthia Parker story is no reason to state that it thus bears no resemblance to the book. No one who has experienced both the book and the film is going to take you seriously if you purport that. And I don't believe I edited anything of yours to suggest that the Parker story is not more relevant to the film. I only changed your POV that the book is IRRELEVANT to the film, and suggested that there is a middle ground. Which there is! Clearly these are matters of opinion, which, in Wikipedia terms, means that we can state that there ARE differing opinions (citing them is good), but we cannot insist that one opinion is the ONLY one, which is what you are doing in denying a relationship between the book and the film. You may believe that. I may believe differently. But neither of us can say that the other opinion doesn't exist or is wrong. You bolster your argument by citation, not deleting. I believe I have adhered to Wikipedia rules and tried to bring an objective awareness of this film which I have spent my life studying to this page. You can argue with my placement of certain things. But to insist that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong (which if not in so many words is very much the tone of your edit summaries and talk page contributions on this subject) is quite the antithesis of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Monkeyzpop 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment: referring to someone else's cited and well-formed submission, whether you agree with it or not, as "this mess" is counterproductive.  And I am unaware of a rule stating that openings "should be 3 paragraphs."  Please point me to that Wikipedia instruction.  And yes, I deleted your quotation regarding the book/movie connection from the opening, as it was repeated several times throughout the article and is not STYLISTICALLY proper for the opening, which should -- from a good writing standpoint -- be a précis of clear definition, not detail.  The Wikipedia entry on Film doesn't (and shouldn't) read "Film is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form, and the motion picture industry. Films are produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or special effects.  The rise of European cinema was interrupted by the breakout of World War I while the film industry in United States flourished with the rise of Hollywood. However in the 1920s, European filmmakers such as Sergei Eisenstein and F. W. Murnau, along with American innovator D. W. Griffith and the contributions of Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton and others, continued to advance the medium."  No, it opens with the first two sentences and saves the detail for later.  (Sorry for the long example.)  And finally, my "swift" reverting?  This is the first time I've ever edited this page, to my memory.  I just happened on your changes and edited the page.  And I only did it once.  You'll notice that even now, though I'm in vehement disagreement with you on several points, I've not re-reverted.  Let it stand and let's get some more discussion.  I'm glad you don't want an edit war.  I don't either.  But you seem to be quite willing to presume that's where I'm coming from.  I'm not.  I just know this film, have huge resources for citing references to it, and want to help, without promoting a POV that I cannot support from other sources.  I hope that's acceptable to you. Monkeyzpop 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkeyzpop I am sorry you chose to take this tact. However, I should not have written I felt your edits were poor, that was uncalled for, so I will take a lighter tact in responding, and hope we can avoid this sort of unpleasantness. First, let me say in plain english that I never said I was right and anyone who disagrees with me wrong - if you read my messages to other editors I have worked with, you would find the opposite to be true, that I seek consensus, and seek third or fourth party opinions when my work differs from someone elses in order that I may find whether mine is lacking. You left a somewhat different message on my talk page, which I responded to differently, and would hope that message would govern our responses. Frankly, I always sigh when someone begins to trumphet their academic achievements. I was educated in the good old law, to answer your question, not as a movie reviewer. But I have a degree in history also, (and another in legal studies), I suppose that qualifies me about as much as you to write an article on this film. To get to the issues and avoid more personal nastiness. First, I never suggested that there is NO relationship between the LeMay book and the Ford movie, I said that there was no nexus to point to except Brit Johnson did rescue his family by ransoming them. I think that needs to be pointed out, and I was careful to cite the close relationship between cold hard facts of the Parker saga and the Ford movie - Schneider said it better than I ever could! I wrote, and mean it, that I seek to work with you and craft an article we both can agree on, rather than engage in an edit war. I note that your edit summary in answering Erik's reversion was at least as tactless as mine. But I don't feel that we have to engage in this sort of unpleasantness, or "how many college degrees do you have, because I have three and that means WHAT?" (I have to admit amusement that you are a published author - I have articles published in the "real world" also, and I taught history in Texas, before the law seized on me! Your insinuations I lack your education  please, the personal attacks on my academic credentials - it brings to mind the old saw, if you have the law, cite it, if you have the facts, recite them, if you have neither, call names.  I will post this also on the peer review page.  I say in closing that I respectfully ask you to not attack me personally - the worst thing I can be acused of in this disagreement is saying I thought your edits were poor.  You, on the other hand, stated I am uneducated, (without a clue what my education is), rather suggested I said things I plainly did not, and made this quite personal.  I think your attack on me speaks for itself.  But I believe we can do differently, if you cease the personal attacks. By the way, the 3RR rule applies to such situations as ours, where one editor reverts the other without discussion and reverts 3 times in 24 hours. You can edit 1000 times in 24 hours if the edits are not reversions. Stillstudying 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Finishedwithschool
I have looked at the article, and the suggested changes by Stillstudying, and Monkeyzpoop. I think his suggestion that John Wayne's character being in love with his sister in law is possible, and a lot of reviewers agree with him, so it is reasonable to put it in the article, but not in the critical interpretation section, certainly. I also think it is no "theme" in the cinematic and/or novel sense of the word, and it is better off in the plot section. The entry paragraphs should be extended, and I like the comment by the reviewer talking about the movie and Cynthia Parker. Finishedwithschool 17:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Finishedwithschool. Monkeyzpop was kind enough to point out numerous spelling and gramatical errors which I have corrected.  I hope he feels the placement of the love Ethan has for Martha in the plot is a better fit.  Does anyone else have anything, other than I need to find a public picture of Ethan standing in the door - that pictures really sums up Ethan, alone by fate and choice after completely the mission that drove his life.  Don't you wonder if he had anything left to live for, after fixating his entire existance on the search for so many years, as James Parker poured his entire life into his search for his niece? Stillstudying 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for review of changes by Stillstudying

 * Erik (talk • contrib),Monkeyzpop, Finishedwithschool, Alien, I would really appreciate a review of the updated article. I have redone the article in toto, adding a production section, and making the other changes as we have discussed as a group on this page.  I have added a number of relevant photos with explanations, and am looking for a fair use photo of Ethan standing in the door at the movie's end, so we can add that, complete with discussion of it's relevance, (him as the eternal outsider, his mission complete he has no place in the civilized home, etc.)  Are there other major changes that anyone sees we need to do?  Erik?  Alien?  Monkey is out of town, and will weigh in when he returns.  Anyone else?  How does everyone like the article now?  Stillstudying 13:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation of changes oldwindybear
Nice job of rewriting. You managed to address the lack of a production section, and did what I believe is a very nice job of creating a good critical interpretation section. I liked the pictures you put in, liked the comments, and felt all in all you raised the article from a B to a GA, but that is my personal opinion! old windy bear 17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)