Talk:Raging Bull

Survey

• Support Academy Awards for film scripts are divided into two categories and two separate awards; Those for Adapted Film Scripts and those for Original Film Scripts. In the case of Raging Bull, both the director (Scorsese) and the lead actor (DeNiro) have indicated that the LaMotta autobiography was the source adapted for the film. Credit where credit is due. LaMotta wrote the book that made the movie about his life! AutoMamet (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is about the film, which was an interpretation of LaMotta's life, this is not a biography article about LaMotta. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Most emphatically. Could be the subject of or in another article, but certainly not this.
  — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 19:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: While a survey or RfC isn't a vote, per se, it's not appropriate for AutoMamet to make it look (probably unintentionally), like there are 2 editors supporting inclusion of this text. So I just made a slight formatting adjustment so that both of AM's points lie in the same bullet point. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the two contradictory votes, since AutoMamet said they were intended as examples or "banners". Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: In posting the RfC, the original pair of Support-Oppose headings were not listed for the purpose of posting a comment but only for the purpose of providing banners for the two categories so that participants could begin to list and append their comments. When I posted the two banners I was not making any statement of my own comment and nor did I in any way mean to suggest that I Oppose the inclusion of the autobiography edit being recommended even though I signed it following the format instructions for starting an RfC. The initial post of the pair was as banners pro and contra to which participants would then append their own comments. Two days later, I posted the sole position of Support next to the banner to date, and my reason for it. The two-banner format is the standard one recommended on the RfC start-up page for all editors. AutoMamet (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fair; I didn't think that you were deliberately trying to be deceptive. I've never actually seen a set-up like you had; I think the "two-banner format" you're talking about means that people often put three level three headings (3 equal signs); one for support, one for oppose, and one for threaded discussion. They don't generally put a "null" bulleted point. But everything is good as long as we know what was actually intended. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for a variety of reasons. (1) Sources must be about the film, and must not be primary sources such as the source (biography, memoir, novel, etc.) the film was taken from. (2) This editor has an extensive history of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS and is replicating that here. (3) This editor has a history of repeated and varied disruptive editing and refusal to listen to or comprehend repeated efforts to explain Wikipedia policy to him. (4) This editor also has an extensive history of misrepresenting the facts, and therefore in my opinion cannot even be trusted to accurately represent even a quote from a book or article unless it is directly linked and viewable online (or a scanned page copy is provided). (5) But most of all, to repeat, this article is about the film, not about Jake LaMotta or his memoir(s); therefore all sources and commentary must be about and from sources about the film, not sources about Jake LaMotta. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Update for User:Qwyrxian: It appears sufficiently clear to me that after five days that a thirty year old film (Raging Bull) is not likely to receive much more comment or review. My request is that, if all are agreed, to request a possible recommendation be made regarding the quality of the edit in the presence of all of the above comments. Since you are more than familiar with all of this matter and its history, and that you are twice as experienced as anyone else on this Talk page exchange, I am acknowledging that I would fully accept your evaluation as sufficiently neutral and unbiased in any way for either posting the proposed edit, posting the edit with mods, or any other evaluation which you might place. In the absence of any objection, that you may do so anytime after midnight tomorrow, on the 23rd, providing no other comments are posted.

Post-script. Although I understand the intention in your posting your previous comments on the RfC survey above, the other editors have taken it upon themselves to make multiple copy-pastes of it on The Departed Talk page as well, as a continuing criticism of me by you in spite of your explanation of it. It was copied four times throughout the Talk page on The Departed, and on the edit history log of The Departed Talk page, also in the form of a harsh reprimand against me. Is there anything I can do to try to ameliorate the Talk page on The Departed wikipage after so much copy-paste of your statement above by the other editors? With appreciation for any attention you can give this. AutoMamet (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

RfCs generally run for 30 days, so just leave this open. We have a bot that automatically notifies random people who've signed up, so it is not unusual to have comments trickle in slowly over time. Of course, if the RfC were to close with no more change, the consensus would be obvious: not to include the suggested section. I'll take a look at the Departed talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding AutoMamet's "Post-script": I just have to point this out as yet another blatant and massive misrepresentation of the truth. "[O]ther editors have taken it upon themselves to make multiple copy-pastes of it on The Departed Talk page .... It was copied four times throughout the Talk page on The Departed" No, Gareth Griffith-Jones made ONE single verbatim copy of it when he fixed the format following Qwyrxian's lead. "[A]s a continuing criticism of me by you in spite of your explanation of it." No, it was never presented as a criticism (just a page cleanup and clarification), much less as one by Qwyrxian; it was acknowledged as being, as the edit summary distinctly indicates, "probably unintentional". "[A]lso in the form of a harsh reprimand against me." Nowhere at all in the remediation of your formatting has there been any "harsh reprimand" of you. In fact, quite the reverse: It has been acknowledged over and over that your misleading formatting was "probably unintentional", "understandable", and "inadvertent". We don't expect people who are creating their first RfC to get it perfect, but it was best for the editing to be normalized for the reasons given by Qwyrxian (and by the way, Qwyrxian's exact words were used). Softlavender (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Update for User:Qwyrxian: The comments by User:SoftL are false and look delusional. I continue to be the only one of the users among the participants who has actually read the referenced books and this is sitting badly for some reason with the other editors. User:Hearfourmewesique has tried to explain to User:SoftL with more patience than I thought was humanly possible that her/his understanding of the Scorsese quotes on The Departed Page is deeply flawed and in error. User:SoftL had apparently taken this very badly and appeared to leave the discussion for several days. Now there appears to be a monomania, a fixation on User hounding which is uncivil and looks like outright slander. The copy-paste of your RfC comments without your permission appeared four (4) times as a reprimand to me without your approval on The Departed page. It was first (1) reposted as a straight reprimand about me on The Departed page, second, (2) my comment field was then re-edited as a second reprimand to me on The Departed page, (3) The Edit history page separately repeated the reprimand a third time about me, and (4) when my own comment was re-edited it appeared another time as a full line reprimand to me on the Edit history log for The Departed Talk page again. I then brought this to your attention and asked for you to look at this yesterday. Is there a wiki policy for curtailing fixated and disturbed users like SoftL who have no sense of civility and are fixated on hounding the only participant in this discussion who has actually read the books which are being discussed? I believe I have followed all of the rules in posting this RfC. How do I report User:SoftL for uncivil conduct which appears like a deviant fixation? AutoMamet (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have attempted to counsel Softlavender, and asked that s/he removed points 2-4 above, but s/he refused. If you wish to pursue sanctions, the correct place would be at WP:ANI. However, I do have to point out that you also have some problems above--specifically, I don't think any possible reading of Softlavender's actions, even though wrong, could be called a "deviant fixation"; also, there is no requirement that anyone get my permission to copy my words--the CC-BY-SA license, in fact, means anyone is always free to do that with anything you or I write, here or anywhere else on WP. But, overall, I do feel that you bringing this matter to RfC (and at the other page) was the correct move on your part, and not in any way disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. A themes section should be based on critical consideration of the film, not on LaMotta's life and career. The danger lies in synthesis and original research of LaMotta material to achieve a novel conclusion about the film. We should let film scholars provide the conclusions here. (Note that I have fixed the initial confusion created by the OP in which it appeared as if he was voting three times.) Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Update to User:Qwyrxian, thank you for trying to counsel with user:SoftL. For the present, your indication that user:SoftL was wrong in his/her comments should be clear with no immediate follow-up on my part needed there. Also, your indication that the thirty day period should be allowed to continue for this RfC was appreciated. Your other comment previously was that if the comments/opinions do not change substantially regarding opposition, that this would be a self-determined conclusion on the basis of this survey here. I have a specific question. The standard for Academy Awards committees, the world-wide authority, is that film scripts are awarded this prize on the basis of being either an Original Film Script or an Adapted Film Script (two separate awards) and that adapted film scripts need to identify their source of adaptation. My question in this specific context then would state that even if 10 or 20 or 100 wikipedians do not like this decision by the Academy Award committees, that then general "band-wagoning" of opinion here should still not mediate against what the Academy Awards committee has designated as their policy of recognition independently of wiki. My understanding is that in such cases that it is up to Admin to decide what the best thing is for wiki at the end of the day. In this case, no matter what wikipedians may like to form as an opinion, by band-wagoning or otherwise, it is up to Admin to decide if the bandwagoning represents something good for wiki in general or not. It is the Academy Awards committee that has designated the category of Best Adapted Film Script and its standards of recognition, not me, and in this case only Admin would appear to be able to avoid the obvious direction that band-wagoning of opinion would lead this Talk page discussion towards under normal circumstances. If the role of Admin is different from what I have described here then possibly you could post something to inform this situation of when only the mere bandwagoning of comments leads in directions not good for wiki in the larger picture. AutoMamet (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Your perception is, only partially correct. First of all, admins don't close most RfCs--only those that are very complex, have lots of discussion, have potential to have a wide effect, and/or are very close. None of those is the case here. Second, an admin would never weigh in the rules of an outside body, as that's not relevant. Third, even if they did, that wouldn't be relevant here, as the question isn't really about whether the material goes in at all, but rather whether the extent that you wish to include it is appropriate. While this is a policy-based question (WP:UNDUE and WP:OR play in here), it's certainly not a cut-and-dried case where policy obviously favors your interpretation. Admins cannot super-vote; they may discount comments/arguments that are not based in policy, but, at least at first glance, I don't see any arguments like that here. Finally, I recommend that you not impugn other editors comments by calling them bandwagoning, as quite a number of them appear to have well-thought out reasons; those reasons may ultimately be incorrect, and ultimately not be consensus, but that doesn't mean that they aren't considered decisions made based upon other people's interpretation of policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Are there concerns for the civility of this discussion, and, for assessing the need to study the Autobiography by LaMotta to make effective recommendations. AutoMamet (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• What kind of concerns? AutoMamet (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)