Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:02, 6 February 2014

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

This is Ring Cinema's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 31 days

happy birthday transcript

Patty Hill's 1935 deposition Deposition De Bene Esse 7-8 in Hill v. Harris, No. E 78-350, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Examination of Miss Patty S. Hill by Mr. Malcolm B. Stark).

A. . . . while only the words “Good Morning to All” were put in the book we used it for “Good-bye to you”, “Happy Journey to You”, “Happy Christmas to You” and “Happy New Year to You”, Happy Vacation to You” and so forth and so on. Q. Did you also use the words “Happy Birthday to You”. A. We certainly did with every birthday celebration in the school. Q. Did you write the words for this particular tune of “Good Morning To All,” Miss Hill? A. I did. Q. Had you at that time also written many other verses in conjunction with the words which appear in the edition of “Song Stories for the Kindergarten”, published in 1893. A. Yes, we were writing them practically every day.150

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Notice of article editing and justifications : THE ENGLISH PATIENT

I believe these changes are in line with both the efforts of W. for appropriate article content that best presents the intent of the subject and should it be found they do not meet standards then I will take the issue up with the review board in order to get a better understanding as to just what role do individuals serve in this effort.

ORIGINAL: In the final days of World War II, Hana, a French-Canadian nurse in an abandoned Italian monastery looks after a critically burned man who speaks English but is reluctant to disclose any personal information.

REPLACEMENT: World War II waning finds the French-Canadian Hana nursing, in a bombed Italian monastery, a critically burned English-speaking man avoiding disclosure of personal information.

JUSTIFICATION:

Waning means coming to an end and adequately sets the war time frame in five words instead of the eight.

"Abandoned" does not adequately convey the monastery's condition. It was abandoned, yes, but the uncertain safety of it, which may very well be a reason for it being people less, better conveys by being described as bombed which can convey also that the site was not safe therefore people less. Even Hana is warned of marauders when taking on the task. "Nursing" conveys both what she is doing and most likely her role in the war and eliminates "looks after" which is an aspect of nursing.

"Critically burned English-speaking man" conveys with less words than "a critically burned man who speaks English" The use of "but" implies that being "a critically burned man who speaks English" is the reasoning behind "is reluctant to disclose any personal information." It is not. He could have other reasons: trauma memory loss, embarrassment, a personal preference? Also, "avoiding disclosure of personal information" says in five what the original says in seven words.A1Houseboy (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1Houseboy (talk • contribs)

We can discuss this on the talk page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, see User talk:A1Houseboy#Third Opinion and The English Patient talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: No Country for Old Men (film) - Undid revision 591633596 by ClanCularius: out of place

It sounds as though you have no objection to identifying the Chigurh character as a psychopath, but you would like to see the reference placed elsewhere. I believe it belongs in this article (specifically describing the film version of No Country for Old Men) at a minimum, to provide in-article support for the categorization "Category:Films about psychopaths" found at the bottom of the page. Other WP film articles have identified characters as psychopaths in various places within the WP film article template, from the lede (e.g., Killer Housewives) to Plot (as I originally placed it on this article, for example, or as found in Kiss of Death (1947 film), Kalifornia, Bad Day on the Block, 5150 Elm's Way, Anjaam, Rest Stop (film), Visiting Hours, and others), Synopsis (e.g., Road (film)), Production (e.g., Halloween (2007 film)), Cast (e.g., The Good Son (film)), and others. There appears to be no pattern or fixed rule.

My major goal in this change is to anchor and justify the article's categorization of "Category:Films about psychopaths" by providing an explicit reference to an acceptable source, so I had not intended to add much material to the article. Meeting this goal doesn't seem to require a paragraph or even a full sentence, but I am not sure where in the article you will find it acceptable to add the brief description "psychopath" and the supporting reference. Please let me know what you had in mind - thanks for the interest and the comment. ClanCularius (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that material would fit in the section on the character. (Chigurh may have his own page, too.) For the plot summary, I feel it is better to stick to the action of the film and studiously avoid conclusions. If he is a sociopath, the evidence is in his behavior and we can squeeze as much of that into the plot section as feasible. If you believe he is a psychopath, my question for you is, How do you know? That's what belongs in the plot summary. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As I mentioned above and have discussed in more detail elsewhere, I am working to reflect recently published results of researchers analyzing the accurate (or inaccurate) depiction of psychopathic behavior by film characters. That research anchors and justifies the article's categorization of "Category:Films about psychopaths", which (in this article) was present before I initially added the reference that kicked off this discussion. The article on Anton Chigurh addresses his behavior as depicted both in the novel and in the film, and does not appear to be the right place to put the categorization "Category:Films about psychopaths". This article on the film appears to be the right place to embed the research reference.

Following your suggestion, I will place the term "psychopathic" and the appropriate reference in this article's section Cast. (I am inferring this is the place you refer to as "the section on the character".) I am not certain regarding the Misplaced Pages protocol for the wider application of this standard to the articles where the terms "psychopath" and "psychopathic" already appear in the lede, Plot, Synopsis, or other sections. Will you be addressing them, or is it expected that I should do so, or are they best left as they stand? Thanks for your advice. ClanCularius (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. What is the importance of labeling Chigurh a psychopath? While I can imagine that for some in the professions of mental health it is useful to have an interesting, accurate example, it doesn't seem so significant to me that the readers of this article are told that he fits a model of complex behavior that is constructed for purposes unrelated to the ostensible aims of the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, and I hope your question is not the type of query that would hide under bridges to commit blood crimes on yokels and their livestock.

In some very general sense you may be asking why we want an online reference mechanism that links reputable research to widely-known terms, works, and memes of popular culture. "Why does IMDb exist?" you might cry. "Misplaced Pages? Google, for that matter?" I would suggest that these tools evidently support some human needs or they would not consume so many of our resources in time, attention, and effort. The fact that you have mastered WP's formidable interface implies that you already support the concept of an online reference mechanism with the features just described. Your question must therefore be more subtle in its implications.

At one level, your activity in this article might imply you have already observed that the detailed descriptions of filmic characters provide a continual stream of interest and entertainment for film watchers. Just to pick the nearest example, the Goldfinger article mentions many filmic character traits apart from psychopathy that may interest one or more Misplaced Pages readers: Goldfinger is wealthy - is a man - is obsessed with gold; Mr. Simmons is gullible; Tilly Masterson is vengeful.

Looking more deeply into your question, perhaps you are wondering why these characteristics are mentioned in the WP article. Why is it written that Goldfinger is wealthy, implied to be successful at some capital-generating enterprise (however criminal), and therefore exhibiting complex behavior that some might claim is constructed for purposes unrelated to the ostensible aims of the film? Who has documented the ostensible aims of the film, that we may solve this conundrum? Why, in any constructed discourse, should it be said that Goldfinger loves . . . gold? Deep questions, indeed, though - to a simple film fan, for example - perhaps irrelevant or unnecessary.

Even deeper, why do other characters have their own personal characteristics, in this or any work of popular media? Why do characters have unique names? Why do characters even exist? At the risk of oversimplifying a potentially rich and wide-ranging discussion of fiction, meta-narrative, and the post-modern meaning of "meaning", I conjecture in general that fans of the genre or of popular culture in the greater sense demand this sort of content from the media they consume (both the original source media, i.e., the film Goldfinger, and secondary or tertiary sources like reviews, scholarly papers, and Misplaced Pages). Needless to say, I cannot answer for you in particular.

There is an hypothetical "I" that self-identifies as an amateur of cinema. I watch well over 400 films a year. I am deeply interested in films, books, and printed graphic works containing representations of mystery, suspense, action, violence, and evil. In these characteristics, I am not alone - that is, I represent a cohort, not insignificant in size, of the popular media consumer. Is it really a mystery that I am likewise interested in the nature of the characters I watch every night? That I want to know why they act as they do? That I am curious about the authenticity of a director's vision or of an actor's interpretation of the script? That I wonder whether real people like the ones depicted actually exist, and actually behave as depicted? My real and representative interests alone may answer your question.

On a slightly less post-modern note, the research paper earlier referenced was discussed at the local university's faculty club last weekend. It was immediately apparent that the list of films chosen by the researchers was skewed or incomplete in significant ways. I raised from memory ten or more films of the last fifteen years from Korea, Japan, and south-east Asia that were better suited for this sort of study than many of the films originally selected by the researchers. Someone else wondered at the poor showing of Hong Kong or mainland Chinese films on my list and on the list defined by the original researchers: is there a cultural or other bias at work on the part of the researchers, or are the involved film-makers avoiding psychopathic characters for reasons yet unknown?

It became my responsibility to find other candidate films for further formal or informal research, so I came to WP for leads. It is clear that the adjective "psychopathic" and the noun "psychopath" are much more liberally interpreted on Misplaced Pages than the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, in Hare's PCL-R test for psychopathy, or in related professional tools. Many filmic characters displaying clear and consistent traits of psychopathy, such as Auric Goldfinger in this film, are not identified as psychopathic in WP. Many other filmic characters, including some explicitly rejected by the researchers for displaying inauthentic or no characteristics of this mental condition, are labeled psychopathic. I felt that Someone was Wrong on the Internet.

As a predictable but unfortunate result, I came to believe that some users of WP exhibit a curious "psycho-blindness", to coin a novel and quite unnecessary term. They disbelieve and reject incoming information that suggests their preconceptions about psychopathic behavior, richly and inaccurately fed by WP itself, may be inconsistent with formally completed, reviewed, and published scientific research. I find this sad, yet I believe it's somehow avoidable. Surely there must be a way to clarify the meaning and implications of these scientific terms, perhaps in reference to works of popular culture that are widely accessible and may even be familiar to the WP users in question. More complete and more accurate information on psychopaths in film might help in some way! But where can we put it?

To wrap up, and again in reference to your question, I suspect you know where we can put it. I hope you can agree that someone is interested in almost any type of information, and that in the inclusive universe of the Web it may be worthwhile meeting that need. Structuring the discourse to satisfy the varied and sometimes incomprehensible interests of other humans may be challenging, but is ultimately worthwhile. A life, or even a half-hour, documenting something of interest to someone is conspicuously more valuable to the Web than one spent in protocoloholic gateclosing.

I cannot myself comfortably take on a role as gatecloser, to campaign that the Web be purged of references to items I personally don't find interesting, reducing its size and general usefulness by a trillion times. I respect the nature and choices of others in this regard and humbly suggest that if someone is so interested as to learn Misplaced Pages's crappy editing UI, to grasp however feebly the mass of written and unwritten rules of combat, to research content, and to overcome WP's many other barriers against entry, then the benefit of my doubt is their freedom to document those areas of the universe that they find interesting. I hope I have not, in making this response, alienated or offended you. And I hope that you understand my answer to your question. ClanCularius (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You are correct that WP offers information to readers, but not exactly spot on that designations of 'psychopath' applied to fictional characters share the same epistemological status as the rest of its material. The film can be understood equally, it seems, with or without determining Chigurh's clinical condition. In fact, if no one had said anything about his "diagnosis", the story retains all of its values, and if in the future there is a debate among professionals about whether or not he is a psychopath that leads to widespread agreement that he is not, none of the fictional elements of the film are changed. No one in the film responds to Chigurh qua psychopath. However, nothing could change the fact that the film is set in Texas, even if the state was annexed by Australia and renamed "New Outback". So, a plot summary should say what happens in the film and psychopathology is not a subject of the film or an element in the plot. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:The English Patient (film)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  11:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Unusual phrases from four editors

A1Houseboy: "Did any one block the meaning of those three words from being used to clarify the understanding that the "burned man" and the "dashing archaeologist" were the same. The answer is no by the potential solutions to be found stated in the Discussion section."

SharpQuillPen: "Personally, not knowing all the little details one might when you grow up in a particular environment learn, there is a lot that is need to become familiar in order to get a better understand as to how to place what happens in the film with real life since there are some scenes that all you know is that they followed in the film but you do not know during when so you just have to accept on nuance."

WordwrightUSA: "Mastery seems to be a perception that you hold high your craft of composition but evidently that mastery doers not include the means by which your characterizations are expressed for nullification. Please attempt by all means possible the absence of what can only truly and accurately be attributed your own attitude towards things that make it an avenue by which you to exhibit."

LimeyCinema1960: "Is it crucial in the development of this article that a preliminary draft of an independent and probably on their own effort produced dialogue transcript of the released film have have a typo identified? Talk about inconsequential and maybe a pathological obsession with asserting some sense of perceived authority working on behalf of the group based on what that person accepts as either correct or incorrect. This comes from me because i am attempting to understand the dynamics and reiterate in my mind every time that some "decision" comes down from Almighty."

Stylometric comparison, anyone? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Curious.
Curiosity (from Latin curiosus "careful, diligent, curious," akin to cura "care") is a quality related to inquisitive thinking such as exploration, investigation, and learning, evident by observation in human and many animal species. The term can also be used to denote the behaviour itself being caused by the emotion of curiosity. As this emotion represents a thirst for knowledge, curiosity is a major driving force behind scientific research and other disciplines of human study.— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)