Talk:Blue Is the Warmest Colour/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Article lead...

I have edited the lead numerous times because I feel for a film of such weight and importance, two paragraphs does not even begin to surmise the film, its background and its controversial release. Everything in the content I added was backed up by reliable sources from noteworthy news websites. I fail to see why every time I edit the lead, it is almost instantly reverted without sufficient reasoning. If nobody has objections to the content I added, then I will revert it back. Ashton 29 (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you trying to add something about the controversies? If so, I'd support one or two sentences (max) on it. The lead is currently all about the praise and accolades received; not quite a summary of its most important contents. Lapadite (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Lapadite here. Also pinging @Gomuse17: for any futher comments too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The content I added was about the production and the controversy that resulted from the actresses comments around the time the film premiered, as well as critical discussion about the sex scenes. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Ashton 29, your edits (I presumed you edited as an IP editor) were previously reverted because the current form of the lead has stabilised for some time now and I would say that it is appropriate and sufficient for the current length of the article - any addition would render the lead excessive. Besides, the lead section should be a concise overview of the film and there is already a section that adequately address the production, themes and controversies surrounding the film. Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, I really don't see the point of giving WP:UNDUE weight to items which, in my opinion, are of less significance and apparently blown out of proportion by the media. Gomuse17 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The lead is suppose to summarise points that will be addressed later in the article, which is why it was added. I still stand by having this content left in. It doesn't do any harm, and even if it's been blown out of proportion by the media (which most things are anyway), it's still given the film a lot of clout and attention outside of the independent film circle which it may have struggled to depart from had it not been so controversial. Very rarely does a French art film make global headlines, yet it did so in the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Canada... that's quite a feat for something produced for under $2 million and given a very limited theatrical release in most cinemas worldwide. Maybe you, or someone else, could re-word it so it's not biased toward what the media was saying. I tried to make it as neutral as possible. Plus, when an actress who actually worked on the film voices her own opinion that reflects what the media were saying (Seydoux's comments), then it's accurate. I don't think that's being blown out of proportion. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. The assertion that simply because there are sources documenting a particular issue, establishes that it should be given due weight in the lead, is problematic. While the controversies were mentioned in media reports, it is a subtopic, bordering on tabloid material, that does not warrant inclusion in the lead section (that should be kept to a reasonable length). And right now the content in the production section has addressed the controversies in its entirety from its Cannes screening to its release, so in any way, summarising them in mere few sentences in the lead may misrepresent the issue, hence should be omitted - see WP:STRUCTURE. Gomuse17 (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Even if it is a "tabloid matter", the controversy certainly wasn't. In fact, the film was banned in some Middle Eastern countries and received an NC-17 rating in the US. Briefly discussing the production in the lead is a perfect segue to lead into the discussion about the explicitness of the sex scenes and the censorship problems that the film had. Furthermore, and this is the most telling part of it all, if the on-set conditions were so trivial, or of tabloid importance, then why was a report instigated by the French Audiovisual and Cinematographic Union (Syndicat des professionnels de l'industrie de l'audiovisuel et du cinéma) about the working conditions for the cast and crew? I'm going to need more than one opinion about this. 04:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It is WP:UNDUE for the lead section. The same amount of expansion could be given to the fact the Palme d'Or was given to the actresses as well. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It is appropriate to cover the controversies in the lead section. WP:LEAD states, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies " (emphasis mine). It has a footnote saying not to violate WP:NPOV, and the controversies surrounding this film are prominent. A controversy that is not prominent would be something like The Dilemma using "gay" pejoratively in film advertising. WP:TABLOID does not apply; if we are presumably discussing #2, I would say that the controversies were more than routine news reporting. I recall coverage about the film's release in the shadow of these controversies, meaning the controversies influenced that coverage. Also, sources like The New Yorker and The Guardian are reliable publications to reference about this matter. We can discuss the actual amount of content and the particular details, but it is rather amiss not to mention the controversies at all in the lead section as WP:LEAD warrants. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

As an outside perspective by someone who's written a fair share of FAs, there's no reason why the lead needs to be capped at two paragraphs like it is here, and the controversies can get a brief mention in a more expansive and representative lead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Also coming from an outside perspective (albeit without Fuchs' credentials), I think that 1-2 paragraphs sentences about the controversy could be tactfully written and placed in the lead. I think the content is worthwhile because it contributes to the reader's understanding of the cultural and social issues the film addresses. -Darouet (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Corrected "paragraphs" to "sentences". -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. This is the kind of perspective I've been trying to get across for sometime. I've been flabbergasted that it is seen as "undue", when it is entirely relevant. In fact, some people know the film for its controversies alone, without having ever seen it. Ashton 29 (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Right well so far I've got 4 (in favour) against 2 (oppose). If nobody else has any further complaints, I'll re-add the content as a third paragraph in the lead. If it's the wording that bothers people, suggest other ways. But I agree with Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, there's no reason for the lead to be capped at just two paragraphs for a film of such leverage. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but there shouldn't a full paragraph solely on the controversies. WP:WEIGHT should be kept in mind. The recommended length so far is one to two sentences. Lapadite (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but would those one to two sentences warrant a separate paragraph in the lead if they also discussed the filming and production (i.e. merging information about the B-roll footage into a paragraph about the post-production controversy?) Because that is what I was originally doing. Ashton 29 (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blue Is the Warmest Colour. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Graphic doesn't mean unsimulated

I removed a "See also" link to Unsimulated sex in film. The only reference I've been able to find to the sex scene being unsimulated is in a few reviews. That can't be used as a source for that piece of information. If someone involved with the film confirms it, then OK, but for now, and if nothing else for WP:BLP and WP:NPOV reasons, a judgement call can't be made. If a source can be provided that is NOT A SUBJECTIVE MOVIE REVIEW, then please feel free to cite a source and put it back. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I see it's listed on the chart at that article. I have requested it be removed for the reasons given above. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No, "graphic" doesn't mean unsimulated; "unsimulated" means unsimulated.
  • [1] “Sure to raise eyebrows with its show-stopping scenes of non-simulated female copulation..."
  • [2] There have been suggestions that the sex scenes are real, something fuelled by Seydoux who revealed last night that “what you see on screen is what we really did”
Now, would you mind self-reverting your edit? Federales (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:NPA, WP:UNCIVIL and ad hominem
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd hesitate to revert anything about a French film not released in the United States of America on the prompting on an unregistered, American editor. Brocach (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It's simulated http://www.craveonline.com/film/interviews/507231-cannes-roundtable-lea-seydoux — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.73.39.151 (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That pretty much settles it. It should stay off. For the record the attempt to close this discussion was improper and without merit as the discussion as far as I can tell remained civil. I don't see anything from Federles or anyone else to justify closing it. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who has seen the film will see it's not simulated. However as I've got better things to do with my time than look up a source then it'll stay inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.212.81 (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Well thanks for that. Enjoy doing whatever it is you do. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blue Is the Warmest Colour. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

15yo?

Any idea why the guide summaries all over the US say the following?

Determined to fall in love, 15-year-old Adele is focused on boys. But it's a blue-haired girl she meets on the street who really piques her interest. Soon, Adele is exploring her desire for girls as she negotiates her way to becoming a woman.

NC-17 featuring 15yo girl conjures a completely different idea of what this film is about, and why it would receive such a rating. Of course "Adele" is 18 in the film that I saw on Netflix--172.243.161.115 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This[3] link on the graphic novel page suggests the protagonist is 15 in the novel. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion. Except the summary above is for the film.--172.243.161.115 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
As explained above, the novel, not the movie, has her at 15. We don't know exactly how old she is at the beginning in the movie, although at some later point she does celebrate her 18th birthday. In France it would not be considered child molestation, since most 15 year olds are considered more mature than their American counterparts, and laws and customs differ from country to country. She was also the "aggressor", not the other way around. She has an insatiable appetite in more than one way. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not correct. The official Cannes press kit for the film states that the character is 15: "At 15, Adele doesn’t question it: girls go out with boys. " See the Synopsis at [[4]]. 174.21.21.253 (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The film does not say how old she is at the start of the film. Therefore an age should not be on there. One film reviewers guess is not enough for it to be fact Cls14 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The age of consent in France is 15, so it may be culturally the "magic age" for first love. Nuttyskin (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Bisexual Erasure

Adèle has sex with a girl and later with a boy. Although same-sex activity between women may, of course, be referred to as "lesbian"; Adèle herself, by her sexual behaviour, exhibits as bisexual. No mention of this, *at all*. "Out of loneliness and confusion Adèle sleeps with Antoine": sorry, but nobody has sex with anyone out of confusion: for confusion, read biphobia! Nuttyskin (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nuttyskin: I would suggest findng secondary sources (published books, magazine articles, and journal articles) which discuss this. Wikipedia is first and foremost based on secondary sources as per Wikipedia:V (which instructs "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources."). Finding secondary sources will be quite helpful here. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
If this is about the plot section, WP:Film plot has advice. Material can be reworded as long as we aren't putting our personal spin on it. As you know, sexual behavior doesn't necessarily equate to sexual orientation, which is why many people who state that they are gay or lesbian and aren't sexually attracted to the opposite sex have been sexual with the opposite sex. Some of these people cite heteronormativity as the reason for that or, yes, being confused. A person questioning their sexuality often involves confusion, which can also involve sexually experimenting because of that confusion. But, yes, like WhisperToMe stated, we need to look at what secondary sources state about interpretations of the characters' actions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

In most circumstances ILL Links should be present when possible

@Sebastian James:

Hi! I saw this revert of my addition of ILL links for other French and Francophone actors/actresses. I disagree with the characterization that they are unnecessary; the one characteristic of Wikipedia is that it is eternally in progress and that people are encouraged to add more articles. These actors/actresses do in fact have articles on FRwiki, and ENwiki readers may not be aware of the fact if the ILL links are not there (as they may not bother to check the FRwiki article).

Humans have short attention spans and will always do so, and it is our duty to remind readers that these actors/actresses have FRwiki articles as a way of encouraging them to then make ENwiki articles.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: Re: this edit summary it is standard practice to dispute a reversion and shift the discussion to a talk page like this. When I say "See talk" and point you to the reason why I reverted your edit, there's an expectation of a reply in the talk page at the same time. Anyhow we have the ILL feature for reason, and I feel it should be used in this article. Why would the ILL feature be inappropriate here? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I support WhisperToMe's edits per Help:Interlanguage links#Inline links (links in the text of the article) #3. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sebastian James: Do you still dispute this edit? If you do not, I will change it back. If you do, I may open an RFC to get further input from people. As seen above I would like to have the ILL links back and do not wish to have a surprise revert. If there is no further reply on this page within 72 hours or more, I will add the ILL links back, and in that case I would not like to see another revert. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The edits are not based on your "liking". I don't like discussing this little subject, but here I am. The links you added, such as this one, do not have any source and composed of two sentences at most (excluding filmography sections, which are also unsourced). Just because they exist in another language doesn't mean you must use ILL links for them. There are multiple problems about these pages, e.g. WP:N (in addition to the other things I mentioned before). You have not presented a valid reason, and neither did User:Erik. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 09:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sebastian James: They are to the community's liking, not entirely to mine, and not entirely to yours. Courtesy says that if Person A starts a talk page inquiry and invites Person B to participate, and Person B fails to participate in a timely matter, then Person B is effectively indicating a lack of interest in the discussion. If Person B still in fact is interested (to the point where he/she/they is willing to revert an edit which Person A does thinking Person B is not interested anymore), his/her/their timely participation on the talk page is expected. Anyhow it is a valid point of concern if the foreign language article doesn't have sources. My view is that it doesn't matter if the other Wiki's article is unsourced (a point that was not brought up until now, and one) - and that's an issue with a lot of Wikis, including the Japanese Wiki - there should still be an ILL link in this case, as it can encourage ENwiki contributors to go on the foreign language page and improve that. Anyhow this very valid point means this issue will be an excellent candidate for an RFC, which I will initiate. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I do not think an RFC is necessary. You can post a neutral notice at WT:FILM requesting additional input, even though I can be counted as a third opinion. His original rationale was "unnecessary", and now he is shifting the goalpost by complaining about notability despite the obvious fact that we don't remove blue links to actors' English-language articles if they look questionable or have some other problems. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
If you want to encourage people to translate two sentences without any source that will result in deletion, go on, nobody is stopping you. I did not change my original rationale, and if I did, it would be none of your business, so try to comment on content rather than contributor, okay? −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 10:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
WhisperToMe started a discussion at WT:FILM, and editors are supportive of this approach in general. No one has said anything like what you have in your rationale to oppose them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think there's clear support across the two threads. I've dropped a note on the user's talkpage about WP:3RR and WP:EW. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Did you even actually read the two threads? In which thread did any editor say "I support this usage of ILL because..."? As you can see here, after User:Erik's question, no one replied except me. (Also, User:Erik is the one who is violationg WP:3RR and WP:STATUSQUO, not me, but of course you didn't know that until now.) −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 17:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to note, RE: ENwiki notability, that as per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers if there's proof an actor "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" then he or she is notable without needing to follow WP:GNG (in other words, without finding two or more secondary sources). WhisperToMe (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

”Significance of the Colour Blue”

This bit doesn’t seem to belong under the heading ”Significance of the Colour Blue”:

There is also a profusion of imagery of food in the film, from the regularly consumed spaghetti to Adèle's first experience tasting oysters. Relationships—both heterosexual and homosexual—are also a common dynamic throughout the film: from Adèle's exploration of failed first romance with Thomas, to her affair with a male colleague, and to her love and loss with Emma.

Agreed-this discussion of the imagery of food shouldn't belong under the significance of the colour blue section. Relevant discussions about this color symbolism in the film would focus on the appearance of blue in the film through shots of the ocean, lens filters, and scenes in nature. The imagery of food does not relate to theme of blue in the film. JDassistant 16:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)JDassistant.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_Is_the_Warmest_Colour/Archive_2&oldid=1149101213"