Wikipedia

Talk:Alfred Hitchcock/Archive 3

< Talk:Alfred Hitchcock
Latest comment: 6 years ago by SlimVirgin in topic Citations
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Alfred Hitchcock. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alfred Hitchcock. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alfred Hitchcock. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alfred Hitchcock. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

McGilligan 2003 citation

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The punctuation in the McGilligan 2003 citation (about the Macguffin) is absolutely bizarre. Is it faithful? Equinox ◑ 14:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox: The references to the McGilligan biography occur over a dozen times in the article, and the reference to MacGuffin is consistent with the link to the Wikipedia article for it as it appears in the Aesthetic section of the Hitchcock article. Let us know which one looks off center. I have also nominated this biography article for GAN if there's any thought on your part that you might like to do the GAN. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not questioning the accuracy of the references, but the strange use of punctuation (commas etc.) in the quoted text. Did I misunderstand you? Equinox ◑ 05:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox: It looks like Ewulp did this correction edit on 8 October. If your comment is about the passage about the MacGuffin following the discussion of the film Backmail then I can offer to rewrite it further as needed. Presently, there are about ten top editors for the Hitchcock page and we are looking for somebody good at dotting "i"'s and crossing "t"'s for the GAN nomination above. Any chance that you could do this GAN for this article? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Treatment of women in life and in films

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I'm not weighing in with a judgment, simply observing that it's surprising this article doesn't give at least a little more weight to the various controversies around this topic. It's not necessary to decide one way or the other, merely to note a little more prominently that the controversy continues though conclusive evidence is difficult to find outside Ms. Hedren's accusations. Again, all I'm suggesting is that the controversies be acknowledged a little more prominently. I think it's possible to do so fairly and without prejudice. I teach film and I would not be able to teach Hitchcock responsibly without at least mentioning the controversy, as a) it's notable and b) students will hear of it and interpret silence as intellectually irresponsible (and they'd be right to do so, in my view). Gcampbel (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There's an extended discussion of the episode with Tippi Hedren in Tippi Hedren's own article. None of the director's other leading ladies reported any such behaviour. Critics have not paid enough attention to the plain nastiness of Psycho, the director's most influential film, but that's their fault and there's not much that Wikipedia, which is merely a precis of secondary sources, can do about it. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree. There is almost nothing about his relationships at all here. It seems his films were all that mattered. There is no doubt he abused poor Tippi Hedren. Rod Taylor confirmed his obsession with her. He told him not to touch her once he said cut, and had her followed. I bet if you tried to put it in some idolatrous zealot would just remove it. --Manky b (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • It might be nice to see someone bring some of this material into the themes article for Hitchcock which currently does not have a section for the theme of Hitchcock's leading ladies here: Themes and plot devices in the films of Alfred Hitchcock. The main book on this is the Spoto book from 2008 which I think you have added to the article yesterday. Spoto's book was the one which was adapted into the film I linked above, and he discusses the other leading ladies in his book as well. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @ManKnowsInfinity: this has nothing to do with "themes". It is about Hitchcock's treatment of women—in real life and his representation of them in his films (see male gaze). You've talked about wanting to take this article to FAC. It will definitely need a section on that to become FA. Frankly, I wonder whether it should even be GA without it. GAs are expected to "address the main aspects" of the topic, and this is certainly one of them. The "Approach towards actors" doesn't mention it. The "Psychology of characters" section confines itself to listing who was blonde. The elephant in the room remains unexplored. SarahSV (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The theme of leading ladies in Hitchcock is the subject of Spoto's 2008 book on this subject. You appear to have started separate threads of the subject matter here and I ask that you merge the separate threads together on the peer review page currently in progress so that all the comments can be together in one place. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Noting here what I've done so far. I'm tightening the writing and removing repetition as I go along. The article was 10,057 words readable prose size on 20 December, and is now 9,745 words, although it contains more information. I think we should aim to keep it under 10,000.

I've expanded the childhood and The Birds subsections, and created education and Tippi Hedren subsections; the plan is that Hedren will eventually be moved into a section about the representation of women. I've also fixed a lot of citations; many had missing authors, titles, etc, and some were in the wrong place. There were several non-RS (and still are) and several inappropriate RS (e.g. citing a book review instead of the book itself, or citing a tertiary source instead of the original source).

I've copy-edited the lead and added a quotation to it. I've added a few images. I've also removed the Biography section heading at the top, because it meant we had a lot of sub-subsections. SarahSV (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Canon

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The lead says that his four canonical films are Rear Window (1954), Vertigo (1958), North by Northwest (1959), and Psycho (1960). The article is also organized along those lines; one heading is "Canonical Hitchcock films: 1954–1960". I'm surprised to see The Birds excluded from the list. What are the sources for only these four being canonical? SarahSV (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please obtain a copy of one of the Hitchcock books which will make it better for your editing here than your relying only on keyword searches on Google books. There is really no substitute for having the central 800-page PM biography in your hands if you are planning serious edits, and not to rely only upon limited views on Google books. The question of Hitchcock's canonical films is well discussed in the literature. Vertigo, for example, as you have read in this Hitchcock article, is currently at the top of the 2012 BFI list of best films. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wood 2015

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

ManKnowsInfinity has added the following, or some version if it, three times [1][2][3] to the section about Tippi Hedren's allegations that Hitchcock harassed her:

Michael Wood in his 2015 biography of Hitchcock commented that the complex question of Hedren's allegations were at least in some part likely justified.[1] In 2014, two years after the release of The Girl recounting Hedren's account, the film Grace of Monaco was released in which Grace Kelly is portrayed as showing enthusiasm for the opportunity to return to work with Hitchcock after a personal invitation from Hitchcock himself to participate in his next project. Another difficulty recounted, aside from Hedren not reporting the matter at the time it occurred, is her return to do a second film with Hitchcock after her statements about how poorly she felt the first experience had gone to then film Marnie. Wood also comments that part of Hedren's difficulty may have been related to a partial self-aggrandizement of her own acting skills when compared to other Hitchcock leading ladies such as Ingrid Bergman (3 films with Hitchcock) and Grace Kelly (also 3 films with Hitchcock), with Wood's further observation that Bergman and Kelly were two of the standout actresses distinguishing themselves above many of the other Hitchcock leading ladies.[2]

References

  1. ^ Wood 2015, pp. 71–89
  2. ^ Wood 2015, pp. 71–89

The source is Wood, Michael (2015). The Man Who Knew Too Much. New Harvest. ASIN B00ZM3IJ80. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I can't find anything like this in Wood 2015, whether on pp. 71–89 or anywhere else. It isn't clear what the paragraph is saying, but ManKnowsInfinity seems to be using Wood to imply that Hedren can't be telling the truth because (a) Grace Kelly wanted to work with Hitchcock; (b) Hedren didn't report it at the time; (c) Hedren made Marnie with Hitchcock after the harassment, so it can't have been that bad; and (d) Hedren may have been jealous of Ingrid Bergman and Grace Kelly.

The source is a professor emeritus of English at Princeton. It's hard to imagine that he would make these arguments. I've asked ManKnowsInfinity to give precise page numbers with no success, and when I've removed the text, he has restored it. I'm leaving this explanation because I'm about to remove it again as original research and arguably a BLP violation, given that Hedren is a living person. It should not be restored until page numbers are offered and we can establish that Michael Wood really did write this. SarahSV (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The Michael Wood edit has no original research in it and is fully attributed. This matter is currently being discussed on the peer review page. Please keep comments in one place on the peer review page without creating multiple threads. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the correct place to discuss it. Please give precise page numbers so that I can find it in Wood. SarahSV (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Without taking a position (yet) on this particular issue, I concur that this talk page is the proper forum in which further discussion should take place. Consensus is generally established on talk pages, rather than in peer reviews, as more eyes are likely to see the discussion. It would be helpful if, for the time being, this part of the article is left as it is, until a consensus or agreement is achieved. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: The main editor for this biography page for the last five years is Keith D who is returning to his edits next week after New Year's break is over. One or two days ago, I had brought up several questions regarding what appeared to be a poorly written and posthumous Hedren section which seemed more related to Hedren than to Hitchcock. By BRD, the new Hedren edit was removed here [4] for discussion at the Peer review page here [5] where most of the editors were active following Keith's request for peer comments. Sarah then ignored the BRD as well as the initiated discussion fully, and then returned her version of the unsupported edit here [6] back into the Hitchcock article apparently applying her sys ops authority. This was apparently done over and above BRD guidelines. Are you saying that she should be allowed to bypass BRD requirements because of her sys ops authority? Are you saying that would be more helpful in some other sense? Or should it be discussed according to BRD until consensus is reached. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
As I've said, I am not taking any position with regard to the various factions in dispute over this article. I am merely reiterating my belief that when a major issue is in contention, the proper way of trying to resolve it is open discusssion on the talkpage rather than within the confines of a peer review. By asking that this section of the article should remain unchanged meantime is not an endorsement of Sarah's text or her actions, merely an attempt to avoid chasing a moving target. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: As you seem to be asking for the re-post here of the discussion from the peer review page it is placed directly below for review of other editors and readers with an interest in Hitchcock for discussion and comment. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity, I'm requesting page numbers for your edit based on Wood, rather than the 71–89 page range you offered. On which page(s) in Wood 2015 can I find something that supports the following?

"Another difficulty recounted, aside from Hedren not reporting the matter at the time it occurred, is her return to do a second film with Hitchcock after her statements about how poorly she felt the first experience had gone to then film Marnie."
"Wood also comments that part of Hedren's difficulty may have been related to a partial self-aggrandizement of her own acting skills when compared to other Hitchcock leading ladies ..."

SarahSV (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This was offered by me on the peer review page and you said you were not interested in my providing any quotations from the MWood book. Which one is it, do you want me to type in some quotations? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't need you to type up quotations (unless you want to). I'm requesting page numbers. SarahSV (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
You do not have the MWood book and you are not interested in someone to type in the passages of interest. Your doing keyword searches on Google books to try to "verify" edits is really not helping you here. MWood does not write his books based on one-line extracts or even one-page extracts. He is not that type of author. This is a significant point which perhaps some other editor may clarify for you for your own benefit. Using the keyword search feature on Google books is not a substitute for having the actual book in hand. The person who has the full book in hand is in a much better position to evaluate the content. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I do have the book, and thank you for explaining to me how to read. Please give page numbers where I can find material to support the two sentences I highlighted above. SarahSV (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article currently uses {{harvnb}} for the short refs. Does anyone mind if I switch to {{sfn}}? The advantage of the latter is that it leaves a closing period, which matches the rest of the citations, and it doesn't require <ref></ref> or ref name=. The only disadvantage (that I know of) is that writing bundled refs is fiddly, but if anyone wants to bundle, {{harvnb}} can still be used. I'm leaving this note here per WP:CITEVAR. SarahSV (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The main editor for the Hitchcock article for the last 5 years is Keith D and his preference appears to be for Harvard. He should be asked prior to any change over. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Noting that, in the absence of an objection from Keith, I've started using {{sfn}}. SarahSV (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hedren

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Another editor has made a number of edits to the early biography sections based on what appears to make extensive use of the keyword search feature of the Google books search engine, while being without the benefit of having the actual books. The edits in that section seem reasonably done. The other unrelated edit dealing with the posthumously made Hedren allegations about Hitchcock appear less useful and misplaced for several reasons. The new weekend edit appears as a somewhat misplaced edit here and resembles a Hitchcock-via-Weinstein section which might belong elsewhere in Wikipedia but appears not to belong in the Hitchcock biography article here. The new weekend edit is posted below to see what other editors may feel about the new weekend edit based on three issues now listed.

In its current form, this new edit was added over the holiday weekend under the title of "Hedren's allegations" and it appears to be redundant, undue, and duplicating material which was already covered in the closing section of this Hitchcock biography article. This new weekend edit is placed below for discussion since it appears in this biography article without any support on either the Talk page for the article or on the peer review page. There are multiple questionable issues with the form of the new weekend edit which might benefit from discussion and assessment prior to deciding on its status in this Wikipedia biography article for Hitchcock as a new edit, or, to decide if the new weekend edit might better be placed in the Wikipedia film article for The Girl, which for the past five years has been the peer reviewed article dealing with the posthumous Hedren allegations. Since the Controversy section in The Girl film article at Wikipedia has existed for 5 years and is peer reviewed it seems a better place for this new weekend Hitchcock-via-Weinstein edit. There are three questionable issues with the new weekend edit listed here.

(1) The material in the new weekend edit is redundant and was already covered in the closing section of the Hitchcock biography article which was deleted by Sarah. There is no reason to cover it twice in this article.
(2) The material in the new weekend edit is undue. The material introduced is a posthumous claim against Hitchcock made many years after his death. The new weekend edit also contains material which is already substantially dealt with in the Controversy section of the Wikipedia film article for The Girl from 2012. The Girl is the peer reviewed film article where Wikipedia for the last five years has dealt with these posthumous Hedren allegations for half a decade. It is undue to include the new weekend edit here in the Hitchcock biography article when it may better be included as a part of the 5-years old existing article dealing with the Hedren allegations for the past half decade on Wikipedia.
(3) The closing section of the Hitchcock biography has already covered and contained this Hedren allegation material adequately as a posthumous allegation against Hitchcock made well after his death prior to its deletion by Sarah. There is no reason to reduplicate material which was already adequately covered in this Hitchcock biography and which currently has its own peer-reviewed main article on Wikipedia in the Controversy section of The Girl here on Wikipedia for the last five years.

This new weekend edit is posted here to see if other editors could provide comments or viewpoints on the best place to deal with and where to place (perhaps on the Wikipedia article for The Girl) these questionable parts of the new weekend edit introduced by another editor. The new weekend edit is included here below:

In 1973 Tippi Hedren, who played the lead in The Birds (1963) and Marnie (1964), said that she had stopped working with Hitchcock because he had become "too possessive and too demanding".[1] Years later she told one of his biographers, Donald Spoto, that Hitchcock had harassed her, and in 2012 a BBC/HBO production, The Girl, depicted Hedren's experiences while filming The Birds. While filming the attack scenes, Hedren was placed in a caged room with live birds, so that some of the pecking at her was real. It took a week to film the scenes. Toward the end of the week, one leg of each bird was attached by string to her clothes, so that they were forced to stay close to her. She eventually collapsed after one bird cut her lower eyelid, and filming was halted on doctor's orders.[2] Hitchcock apparently admitted to François Truffaut that he had gone too far with her.[3][a]
Calling Hitchcock a misogynist, Hedren alleged in 2009 that Hitchcock had become obsessed with her.[5] She said he constantly stared at her, whispered obscenities to her, tried to control her weight (he had potatoes delivered to her home), drove past her home at all hours, had her followed, and sent her wine and gifts accompanied by sometimes childish and emotional notes.[6][7] He had a life mask made of her, had her handwriting analysed, and had a ramp built from his private office that led directly into her trailer.[8] In February 1964, she alleged, he propositioned her sexually, and when she turned him down, he said he would ruin her. Thereafter he would not speak to her directly and referred to her only as "the girl".[9] Hitchcock told John Russell Taylor that the reason he and Hedren had fallen out was that, when Hitchcock declined her request for time off, she had called him a "fat pig".[10] He apparently announced at a press conference that Hedren was under an exclusive contract and that he would not lend her out to other studios,[11] which, in Hedren's view, effectively ended her career.[12][5][b]
Everyone on set had reportedly been aware of the tension.[14][c] Rod Taylor and Diane Baker, who appeared in The Birds, said that Hitchcock had clearly wanted to isolate Hedren from the rest of the crew.[16] When filming Marnie, Hitchcock told Robert Burks, the cinematographer, that the camera had to be placed as close as possible to Hedren while he filmed her face,[17] and according to the screenwriter Evan Hunter, Hitchcock insisted that on filming Hedren's face during the rape scene; Spoto writes that the scene caused everyone on set "considerable discomfort".[18] Eva Marie Saint, Doris Day and Kim Novak, who worked with Hitchcock, told the Daily Telegraph in 2012 that they did not share Hedren's opinion of him; Saint, who starred in North by Northwest (1959), said her experience with him had been "one of utter respect, warmth, friendliness and humour".[19]

References

  1. ^ Christy, Marian (23 July 1973). "Hitchcock Too Possessive, Demanding". The Beaver County Times.
  2. ^ Spoto 1999, pp. 457–459
  3. ^ Adair 2002, p. 129; Wood 2015, p. 113
  4. ^ Spoto 1999, p. 467; Chilton, Martin (13 August 2016). "Alfred Hitchcock: a sadistic prankster". The Daily Telegraph.
  5. ^ a b Goldman, Andrew (5 October 2012). "The Revenge of Alfred Hitchcock's Muse". The New York Times.
  6. ^ Spoto 1999, pp. 451–452, 455–457, 467; Spoto 2008, pp. 250–251
  7. ^ McEvers, Kelly; Lonsdorf, Kat (16 November 2017). "3 Generations Of Actresses Reflect On Hollywood, Harassment — And Hitchcock". NPR.
  8. ^ Spoto 1999, pp. 467–468, 472–473
  9. ^ Spoto 1999, pp. 474–475
  10. ^ Whitty 2016, p. 40; Taylor 1996
  11. ^ Spoto 1999, p. 470
  12. ^ Millard, Rosie (27 July 2012). "Hitchcock's girl". Financial Times.
  13. ^ Taylor 1996, p. 270
  14. ^ Spoto 1999, p. 475
  15. ^ Spoto 1999, p. 472
  16. ^ Spoto 2008, pp. 250, 264
  17. ^ Spoto 1999, p. 471
  18. ^ Spoto 1999, pp. 469, 471
  19. ^ Millward, David (26 December 2012). "BBC under fire over Hitchcock drama". The Daily Telegraph.

Possibly other editors have an opinion on these questions raised for the new weekend edit which has been deleted from the article and placed above for purposes of review and comment by other readers and editors of this peer review to determine consensus. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Commenting on the above: I'm not a Hitchcock expert, and I don't see myself as much of a contibuting editor to this biography, rather as a reviewer/adviser on matters within my competence, e.g. prose, balance, referncing and MoS compliance. To prepare myself, I read Hitchcock's ODNB entry (available via a UK library card). It's a well-written and informative article, and could be a useful additional source.

Re Hedren: ManKnowsInfinity (MKI) calls the current section dealing with this issue "redundant" and "undue". While I have my own reservations about the text added by Sarah, I don't see how "redundant" applies; it's more a case of whether this version serves better than MKI's preferred shorter text. However, over and above the precise wording, my chief concern is the lack of context in which this issue is presented. There is an earlier section in the article, "Characters and representation of women", which provides many examples of how women tend to be depicted in Hitchcock's films, but the question of the director's misogyny is not directly addressed, so that Hedren's accusations of sexual harassment appear somewhat out of the blue. I think it is necessary in the earlier section to confront Hitchcock's misogyny, as the quoted Bidisha article does (and, more circuitously, the ODNB article which euphemistically refers to "his complex attitude to women"). In that context, Hedren's claims can be better assessed.

This article contains a possibly useful quote: "Hitchcock’s attitude towards women is truly misogynistic because on one hand, he despised them for being who they are, and on the other hand, he despised even more when women were willing to change for men".

I don't think the "Allegations" section needs so many examples (more than a dozen) of Hitchcock's supposed importunings, and there is no justification for a second image of Hedren. In summary, therefore, I'd recommend keeping the current version in an edited-down form, within the context of a direct acknowledgement of the Hitchcock's misogyny as attested by various sources. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Brian, I'll trim it, but as I said above, this section will become a subsection of a "Representations of women" section, so it will change significantly as part of that. The reason I added lots of examples is that ManKnowsInfinity was doubting it; as always, these interactions affect the writing. I can't see a problem with the double image of Hedren. SarahSV (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Trimmed. SarahSV (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Thanks for your comments. The redundant part of the edit is found in this section edit at the end of the article which was deleted by Sarah here [7]. After you read it you can decide more about the redundancy question, and also you can verify that the Hedren matter has already been dealt with on the Wikipedia biography article for Tippi Hedren over the last 5 years, which has a substantial section dedicated to it, as well as the Wikipedia film article for The Girl which already has had a Controversy section dedicated to the Hedren matter fully developed for over 5 years. That's a lot of redundancy on Wikipedia for a claim made by Hedren 27 years after the death of Hitchcock, and given that it took 27 years for her to make the isolated claim about Hitchcock it seems best placed on those other Wikipedia articles. Let me know what you think. Previously, my attempt to start BRD for Sarah's version of the Hedren edit was removed by Sarah here [8] for discussion at the Peer review page here [9] where most of the editors were then active following Keith's request for peer comments. Sarah then ignored the BRD as well as the initiated discussion fully, and then returned her version of her unsupported edit here [10] back into the Hitchcock article apparently applying her sys ops authority. I am presenting these links since Sarah is now stating in the new section below that she plans to drop editing of this Hitchcock biography without bringing it to FA nomination when the article looks in worse condition now than when Keith D presented it for peer review two weeks ago.
Apparently her main purpose was to bring in her version of the Hedren material, make a large number of minor and almost automatic edits, and then to abandon the page in what she is admitting as being a half completed version of the article. Please comment on both of these issues in a politic way since Sarah abandoning the article in such a half completed form leaves things in the lurch. Does the 27 year after-the-event claim by Hedren belong on the Hitchcock page or the Hedren page? What can be done about Sarah seeming to abandon the page in what appears to be a half completed version with many cite tags added by other editors mostly because of problems with her many new edits? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer not to respond to these increasingly disturbing posts. But for the record, I am the one adding the cite tags, as I've said elsewhere. I've removed or replaced a lot of the poor sources, fixed ill-formed citations, added sources where there were none, and tagged some of the rest. SarahSV (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
"Does the 27 year after-the-event claim by Hedren belong on the Hitchcock page or the Hedren page?" It's not an either/or situation; the matter is relevant to both articles and should be appropriately dealt with in each – in the case of the Hitchcock article I believe it should be discussed in the section that deals with his relations with women. I'm not endorsing the present version, which may well need further pruning and reorganisation, but I'd prefer to wait until Sarah has finished her say before I start chipping in with more suggestions, otherwise I'll be chasing a moving target. As to Sarah "abandoning" the page or "leaving things in the lurch": there is no obligation on any editor to continue work on a page when they have no wish to say more – that applies to all Wikipedia editing. Nor should you impugn Sarah's motives ("Apparently her main purpose was..."), which is contrary to WP:AGF
The article is currently in a state of work-in-progress, which might make it look worse in some respects than it did earlier; that's normally the case with substantial reconstructions. You could add an {{underconstruction}} banner to the top of the page, to warn readers that the article is not yet in its settled form. Frankly, I'm not really interested at this stage in following up on claims of BRD policy being ignored, etc. I'd like to help improve the article, working with its main editors, but I'm not going to act as a referee between disputing factions. There's plenty of work to be done if the article is to reach FA standard, which I trust is still the long term aim. Brianboulton (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Brianboulton and Keith D: The long term goal still needs to be the improvement of the article and, as Keith stated at the peer review he initiated, to improve the Hitchcock biography to FA status. The current condition of the article is quite poor after the New Year's edits by Sarah and if she is leaving the editing of this page now, as she states in the section below, then the question is to return the article to its best neutral point of development to allow the previous improvement process to continue. Over the New Year's weekend several other editors, and not myself since I was away for New Year's, but other editors have even called Sarah's version ugly, literally ugly, as was done here by another editor: [11]. Still other editors have effectively tag bombed the entire article and made it look like a war zone after Sarah's edits. The article is significantly worse than the version submitted for peer review by Keith a few weeks ago. In order to assume good faith with Brian's suggestion, I offer to add his version of the Hedren material into the article and to delete both Sarah's version and my own version of the Hedren edit, in order to show good faith with Brian and to accept his version and recommendation. Fortunately, the article has several neutral control versions of the article following the recent GA nominations which allow the article to be rolled back to a much better version of the article for enhancement since Sarah has stated her intention to leave the editing here on Hitchcock. There is the version of the recent promotion to the GA version of this article by DrownSoda here [12] as one suggestion. Another suggestion is to use the version which Eric edited which has a much better version of the lead section as edited by Eric here: [13]. A third improved version of the article which can allow for me to add Brian's suggestion and allow the improvement process to continue can be found here: [14]. I am prepared to continue to show good faith with Brian and am offering to add Brian's version of the Hedren edit myself if either one of you could rollback the article to any one of the three previous enhanced versions I just presented, your choice, since Sarah has left the editing of the article in her statement below, and the current article is in a tangled condition with all the defects specified by other editors which I have summarized above. You pick the best rollback version of the 3 choices, and I will pick up on the further enhancement of the article from whichever start point of these 3 options you select. I am doing this in good faith, so its your choice. By the way, Brian, it was Sarah who stated that her purpose here was to bring in her feminist version of the Hitchcock material here [15], and that was not my ascription to her as much as her stating that it was her purpose to incorporated feminist themes into the Hitchcock article. I look forward to your comments and those of any other editors watching this Talk page. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There isn't a "Brian's version" – I've never edited this article, merely offered an opinion as to how the issue of Hitchcock's misogyny/relations with women might best be handled. I originally came to the article in response to a request on the FAC talkpage for some mentoring, and offered to help. I did not anticipate this level of conflict, and frankly I don't have the energy or the time to deal with it. You must do as you think best, but I'm pulling out and won't be responding here again. Under any circumstances. Sorry, but life is too short. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, and I generally agree with you that "life is too short." My comment about your edit version suggestion was your suggestion that the Hedren section added by Sarah should be moved/adapted to other sections of the article, which I agree with. My other point is that the article should be rolled back to one of the peer review versions of the article from last month still holds. If Sarah is dropping out of her effort to convert the Hitchcock article into her view of a feminism-friendly version of the Hitchcock biography without nominating her version for FA assessment, then the article should still be rolled-back to one of the recent peer reviewed versions of the article from last month. Sarah has stated here [16] that she wishes to see a feminism-friendly version of the article completed with the assumption that she can bring it to FA-assessment. This is fine if she can bring it FA, but if she is leaving the editing unfinished with multiple unattended tag bombings from other editors, then the Hitchcock biography should be returned to the previous peer-reviewed version of the article as promoted just last month as representing a peer-reviewed version of the Hitchcock biography. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear what a mess, especially with lots of disjointed discussion of the article. I would think that a roll-back is not really feasible with all of the edits made by others to the article since that time. My guess is that that if it is just some of Sarah edits that are problematic and cause the article to be slanted to a particular point of view then these would have to be removed from the article manually. Keith D (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this comment. Part of the issue is that Sarah has been virtually the single source on all of these recent edits and no-one really knows what the end goal of her feminist friendly version of the Hitchcock biography would be or why she is doing it. She has frozen me out of the editing one week ago by refusing to acknowledge BRD for other editors such as myself apparently through appplying her sys ops authority to over-ride normal BRD. Since the recent edits are virtually entirely her own, then its fine if she is planning to bring this article to FA assessment on her own so long as she does not drop out of the editing as she stated was her plan to do in the section below. If, however, she does wish to drop out of further editing here without fixing the multiple tag bombing (by other editors) caused during her edits, then the roll-back to the previous peer-reviewed version from just last month would still be the best way to return the Hitchcock biography to something which other editors can improve towards FA-nomination. What do other editors think would be the best roll-back position if Sarah drops out of the edit process again without completing her original plan to convert the Hitchcock biography into a feminist friendly version of the Hitchcock biography as she originally stated was her intention to do here: [17]. Which version would be best for Wikipedia readers? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I may revise my position after further looking at the changes made and realising that most of the other edits are actually by Sarah - I had not connected the user-id with the name. The change in reference style also is of concern as this appears to have changed and lost information on the publication details etc. Keith D (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hitchcock's knighthood

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hitchcock's KBE was an honorary knighthood, as he was a US citizen when it was awarded. Honorary KBEs do not use the prenominal "Sir", although they may use the postnominal letters. A similar case is that of Bob Hope – born British, naturalised American, awarded KBE in 1997, but never referred to as "Sir Bob" ( Bob Geldof (Irish) is another case). This article explains the position. So Hitchcock should not be introduced to the article as "Sir Alfred". Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a post in Archive 1 that says "Acquisition of U.S. citizenship on or after 1 January 1949 [see British Nationality Act 1948] does not cause loss of British nationality. Hitchcock naturalised in 1956, hence he remained British." We should look for RS that discuss it. SarahSV (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
This says: "only those British nationals, including dual nationals, awarded British knighthoods may use the title 'Sir' in a formal context in the United Kingdom." It doesn't say from which year. SarahSV (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't honorary. Having acquired dual does not preclude you from being a Sir. Daniel Day-Lewis is a more recent example. This is Hitchcock's obituary from Variety magazine, Among the honors that marked his career, he cherished the knighthood bestowed last Jan. 1 by Queen Elizabeth. Lew Wasserman, board chairman and chief executive officer of MCA Inc. and previously Hitchcock’s longtime agent, yesterday said: “I am deeply saddened by the death of my close friend and colleague, Sir Alfred Hitchcock". Chris M77 (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hitchcock's ODNB entry refers to his "honorary" knighthood. Did he acquire dual nationality when he naturalised as an American? We need rather more than a quotation printed in the Variety obituary to resolve this issue, we need an authoritative statement of the legal position. Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Won't get more authoritative than the British government. Official public record. Besides, I don't think a non-departmental body of the British government, English Heritage, would have a plaque with Sir Alfred Hitchcock if it wasn't the case. Chris M77 (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, that looks good – enough, anyway, to preserve the status quo. Unless/until something contrary turns up, I'm happy to leave the issue as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Review

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I'm leaving this review in case it's helpful to anyone developing the article. When I first saw the peer review, I assumed that Keith and ManKnewInfinity had rewritten the article and were about to take it to FAC. In fact, almost all MKI's edits have been minor (none marked), and Keith has focused on formatting citations and similar issues, which has made the article look a lot better but it leaves the text to be dealt with. It seems that the article was written by multiple editors going back at least ten years, with all the problems that entails, which I'm trying to keep track of at Talk:Alfred Hitchcock/to do. Getting it ready for FAC would be a major project. In summary:

  • Some of the text is unsourced, or sources are offered but don't support the text or support only part of it. In several cases sources allude only in passing to the issue. Non-RS websites have been added after the fact to support unsourced text; newspaper book reviews have been used instead of the books themselves; and tertiary sources have been used that repeat (and sometimes slightly change) the work of earlier authors. Full citation details are missing, including page numbers. I've fixed some of these problems, removed some, and started tagging the rest.
  • There is very little analysis, and most of the article is about the films. Very little about his health, marriage, estate, sense of humour, technique, etc.
  • The previous "Childhood and education" section as I found it was missing a lot of information. I've expanded it so that there are now three subsections covering "Early life: 1899–1919".
  • The "Storyboards and production" section was roughly the same on 30 December 2008 as on 1 January 2018. It is oddly sourced. Summarizing Krohn's Hitchcock at Work, it cites Krohn only once (pp. 1–7), then cites others. The "Character" section stems from 2006. The "Writing" section (now incorporated into storyboards) is also old; it consisted of nothing but quotations. It should be expanded.
  • The "Themes and motifs" section needs to be expanded; it currently says almost nothing. Most of it, including a blockquote, isn't about themes and motifs.
  • The "Characters and representation of women" section lists characters with blonde hair or mother issues, but that's about it. There is no mention of the scholarly literature.
  • The "Approach toward actors" section as I found it said nothing about Tippi Hedren's sexual-harassment allegations. Neither that nor the paragraph on The Birds said anything about her treatment during the filming of the attack scenes (when live birds were attached to her clothes). The paragraph on Marnie did mention her allegations but argued against them, and it didn't mention the rape scene. I've changed that so that the current "Relationship with actors" section contains a subsection about Hedren's allegations. I've created a separate section on The Birds and Marnie that briefly describes what happened to her while filming the former, and very briefly mentions the rape scene in the latter. Once the "Representation of women" section is written (I hope by someone other than me), a decision can be made about whether to move the Hedren/The Birds material into it. That will depend on how the sources approach it; his real-life treatment of women and his approach to fictional female characters are not the same issue, although clearly they spring from the same well.
  • The writing is laboured in places. I've tried to reduce the number of words while increasing the amount of information. We should aim to keep it under 10,000.

I hope this is helpful. SarahSV (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Could Modern's comment be clarified here concerning Sarah's conversion of the article into her own preference for a feminist-friendly version of the Hitchcock biography. The article is currently in poor condition according to multiple comments by other editors who have called her edits on Hitchcock ugly, literally ugly, as I have documented and linked these comments above and elsewhere: see for example here [18]. After Sarah's edits, her version of the article has been tag bombed to the extent of resembling a war zone. Third, her rewritten version of the lead section is significantly worse than the version of the lead section which Keith D had submitted for peer review last month. Are you stating that you prefer Sarah's partially converted version of the biography as being in some way better than the version which Keith D recently posted for peer review comments just last month? Also, Sarah has stated above her intention to drop out of the editing of this partially converted biography in its current poor condition which you appear to be endorsing? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me? I do write in English. I can't help it if you simply do not want to understand. Let me repeat myself IMO the article looks great so far...Modernist (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Certainly, that's fine. In English, my question was: Are you stating that you prefer Sarah's partially converted version of the biography as being in some way better than the version which Keith D recently posted for peer review comments just last month? I ask this in seriousness since other editors have called her edits on Hitchcock ugly, literally ugly, as I have documented and linked these comments above and elsewhere: see for example here [19]. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
You're talking about User:Ceoil who uses 'ugly' a lot; (we've edited many articles together) the edit he changed eliminated an image he didn't like....not a big deal...Modernist (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks kindly for looking that up. The other issue raised is that the article appears to have been tag bombed by other editors is response to Sarah's conversion of the article into her preference for a feminist-friendly version of the Hitchcock biography, coupled with her own indication that she wishes to now immanently drop-out of the further enhancement of the article. Some believe (see for example here [20]) that since Sarah is virtually the single source editor for her own conversion of the article, that she should either bring it FA-nomination herself, or, allow the article to be returned to its previous peer reviewed status just last month, which appears to be Keith D's preference as expressed on Sarah's Talk page yesterday. Should Sarah be converting the article into her own stated preference for a feminist-friendly version of the Hitchcock biography if she is immanently planning to drop-out of the editing while the article is now tag bombed by other editors as a result of her partially completed edits? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
IMO the article looks great so far...Modernist (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
IMO Sarah's current version of the article looks tag bombed by other editors and with a very poor lede section when compared with the article as submitted to peer review just last month by Keith D. Agreement with Keith on this. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments on Hedren material

Sarah is now stating in this new section above that she plans to drop the editing of this Hitchcock biography without bringing it to FA nomination when the article looks in worse condition now than when Keith D presented it for peer review two weeks ago. Apparently her main purpose was to bring in her version of the Hedren material, make a large number of minor and almost automatic edits, and then to abandon the Hitchcock article in what she is admitting as being a half completed version of the article. Could other editors comment on this issue in a politic way since Sarah abandoning the article in such a half completed form leaves things in the lurch. Does the 27 year after-the-event claim by Hedren belong on the Hitchcock page or the Hedren page? What can be done about Sarah seeming to abandon the page in what appears to be a half completed version with many cite tags added by other editors throughout because of problems with her new edits? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Keith

Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Keith, I'm replying here to your note on my talk to keep things together. First, I don't know what you mean by a change in reference style, so please clarify. Second, my edits have significantly improved the article. It was in a real mess. Unsourced, poorly sourced, sources present but not supporting the text, citations half written (missing author, date, page number, etc). Lots of information missing. It's still not good (it would take months to fix it), but it's definitely a lot better.

What I'm doing is trying to create a scaffolding or road map for future development. I'm making sure the basics are there, and I'm adding invisible notes about what to add. I've added a lot of references, fixed a lot of citations, and added citation tags for things I can't find or where pages are missing. SarahSV (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Further supplements to my previous comments about Sarah over-riding BRD using her sys ops authority and freezing me out of editing this Hitchcock biography. The article is currently in poor condition according to multiple comments by other editors who have called her edits on Hitchcock ugly, literally ugly, as I have documented and linked these comments above and elsewhere: see for example here [21]. After Sarah's edits, her version of the article has been tag bombed to the extent of resembling a war zone. Third, her rewritten version of the lead section is significantly worse than the version of the lead section which you had submitted for peer review last month. On top of everything, she has now crowned her edits by placing a fat man joke at the very top of her lead section in the very first paragraph or her lead which is not only inappropriate, but to many it is also offensive to include fat man jokes in a biography about Hitchcock.
All of my references have been fully factual and Sarah appears not to have read MWood, or she simply does not understand him since she is leaving out his strongest statements from the current version of the Hitchcock article. She has several times shown a over-reliance on keyword searches on Google books as a substitute over and against editors who have actually read these books. I have tried several times to convince her that single word searches on Google books is no substitute for actually reading the books, but she appears to fully ignore me on this issue and others. Single word searches on Google books is no substitute for actually reading the books.
I need to also add that when I tried to fix the errors in many of her edits on the article here, she then began a deep mining of my general edit history and reverting my edits on other pages not related to Hitchcock, as she did on the Blade Runner 2049 article here [22], possibly to intimidate or coerce my compliance in fear of further reprisals from her. In the case of Blade Runner 2049, I was then forced to use up my limited contribution time to start up Talk page discussion there before she finally relented. The current version of the Hitchcock article is quite poor according to many other editors, and it has a poor lead section as well. It makes good sense to roll-back the article to a previous version of the Hitchcock biography since we have a fine peer-reviewed version of the article from just last month. I will look forward to comments from other editors as to the best version of the roll-back to rely on if the current feminist-friendly conversion of the Hitchcock article does not improve. This issue is based on the high amount of criticism made by other editors concerning Sarah's single handed attempt to convert the article into her own preferred feminist friendly format. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
ManKnowsInfinity, you are misunderstanding my edit summary. Have been following the progress and very much approve of Sarah's improvements. My edit summary referred to the image I was removing - of a petrol station. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Same question to you as for others. Are you stating that you feel that Sarah's version of the article with its multiple issues of being tag bombed by other editors, and its lead section in worse condition than the one submitted by Keith D last month for peer review is a significant issue or not? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. I have worked with her before, on Ezra Pound, which successfully passed at FAC. I have a lot of faith in her judgement, and urge you to re-read and act on the recommendations made in the review section above. Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
ManKnowsInfinity, I appreciate, and know from early wiki experience!!, that it can be hard to feel suddenly distanced like here, from an article you are invested in. But having again reviewed the changes, I think the page is more on the right track and very much improved with Sarah's and Brian's input. You should look on the positives - the tags are a challenge to improve sourcing and build a more credible article, and the feedback you have received is detailed, insightful, and actionable - many many PRs languish for months and close with only threadbare and trivial commentary. I think also that the direction the article has been taken towards is reflective of majority opinion. As I say, my early ventures into FAC also at first gave me pause, and changed the tone of some articles in a way I was initially uncomfortable with. Here is a good example - at first this seemed to me to be changing the prose in a dry and clinical manner, compared to my then favoured rather bombastic and art-speak style, and but I soon realised the appeal behind the pared back, tight writing, and have tried to adapt it since as best I can. Its a different set of issues here, but instructive; I think a more open and receptive ear from you will serve you and the article in the long run. Ceoil (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
To add my 2 cents having made a few edits on a few articles; I agree with Ceoil's comments above; this article still clearly needs resolution to several tags and issues, and the clarifications that entails, however the article is looking good and needs to go forward not backward...Modernist (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


@Ceoil and Modernist: Thanks to both editors for the useful comments. Sarah has stated the exact opposite here on Hitchcock as opposed to her contributions on Ezra Pound stating her immanent intention to drop out of the editing without further notice as she stated above: "I'm leaving this review". This is the exact opposite of her previously sticking with the Ezra Pound article through its nomination and full development, especially since she is "leaving" this Hitchcock review with a tag bombed article and a poor lede section which is considerably worse than the lead section as presented by Keith D such last month for peer review. Her "leaving" of the Hitchcock article in an unfinished tag-bombed condition with no-one having any idea of what her end goal was or is or would-be, leaves completely unresolved the question of how anyone can fix it since she was basically the sole editor of her own version who had undertaken her project to single handedly convert the article into her own version of a feminist friendly Hitchcock biography. Neither Keith nor I have any idea of what she means by this and she is "leaving" the article in substantially worse semi-transformed condition than its previous version, when it is compared to the peer reviewed copy from just last month as promoted by DrownSoda. As an abandoned non-peer-reviewed semi-converted article by Sarah who states she is "leaving", then there seems no comparison to the GA peer-reviewed article as submitted by Keith last month for enhancement. What good is an abandoned non-peer-reviewed semi-converted article by Sarah who states she is "leaving", when we have a recently completed peer review version of the Hitchcock biography from just last month.
In trying to be politic about this "leaving" situation by Sarah, the best solution seems to be to put back the recently completed peer reviewed copy from just last month back into the main space of the article with the GA icon which it received and which it has earned. The non-peer-reviewed semi-converted article by Sarah who states she is "leaving" should be moved to a draft page titled with something such as "Draft: Alfred Hitchcock" for future development until its conversion is completed, or, at least until Sarah is able to return to her semi-completed conversion of the article and she gets it into peer reviewed status as a draft article before placing it into the main space. I have no problem acknowledging that if she can get her version of the draft article to pass an FA assessment, that it then should properly replace the GA article, which was just recently promoted just last month. Sarah's version is non-peer reviewed and only semi-converted by her own statements, while the peer-reviewed article from last month as promoted by DrownSoda is the only fully peer-reviewed article which Wikipedia currently has on recent file.
@Keith D: On the basis of this summary above and on the basis of Sarah stating that she is "leaving" the article semi-converted and incomplete, I am requesting and submit that the best approach here is to allow Sarah to continue her conversion of her semi-completed project on a page titled "Draft: Alfred Hitchcock" until it is fully peer reviewed (which it currently is not), and that the recently peer-review article from just last month be returned to the main work space as the only version of the Hitchcock biography which is properly peer reviewed. I request this to take effect at this time, since Sarah's "leaving" of the article leaves her semi-converted Hitchcock version incomplete, and her approach here on Hitchcock has been completely different than her previous involvement with her previous efforts on Ezra Pound. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Butting in here (I've been lurking & watching during the clean-up but haven't been able to comment): ManKnowsInfinity the comment Sarah made on January 2, beginning with the words "I'm leaving this review" means that "I'm putting this review here". I've taken a quick look at the GA review, and have been watching the work here, and can only support the direction the article is taking. To pass FA it's important to have the article sourced completely to the best scholarly sources - any unsourced bits should be tagged during the work so the editors working here know whether to try to find a source for a given sentence or to remove it. If the text fails source verification, then that too should be marked. Going through an FA review would reveal the same issues being revealed now and frankly would (or at least should) culminate in an archived review. It's best to get the work done here and now before going through yet another review. Rolling back to a previous version isn't an option without gaining consensus and it would need some very strong reasoning; I've rolled back pages in extreme cases such as copyvio, but nothing in the editing that's being done rises anywhere to the level of requiring a roll back. In terms of the Ezra article: a bunch of us worked together, in collaboration, there, over the course of about four or five years. It wasn't always easy, but speaking for the rest of the crew, I'm extremely pleased with the result - in fact it's the article I'm the most proud of having brought successfully through FA. Collaborative editing is just that - working together to find the best path. Sarah is one of the project's best writers and you're all lucky to have her jumping in. My suggestion would be to let her work the article, help strengthen the sourcing, and once a good draft (here in main space, not in draft space) is completed, bring proposed changes to the talk page and talk it out. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding to the comment above: I took a look at the first set of tags re: The Lodger and went back through article history all the way to 2008 (I stopped then but probably could have kept going), and found the text was in the article then, sourced to McGilligan only, see this version. I then looked at McGilligan and found on page 83 he mentions Hitchcock's time in Germany, he mentions Cubism (and pinging Modernist to ask whether the link there should be changed from Expressionism to Cubism per the source). Reading forward and backward a few pages, I do not see mention of "wrong man" "Hitchcockian". In this edit I corrected the page number, removed a tag, and made an inline comment regarding the rest of the text, and that I'd found the material in the 2004 edition of the book. Rolling back to the GA version of a few months ago will not correct these mistakes - which do need to be corrected. The only way to do this is to check sources sentence by sentence and rewrite accordingly. Having rewritten a couple of articles in this state and done a lot of this type of work, I've found that's it's often easier to remove the text that can't be verified and rewrite from scratch - particularly for an important page such as this. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Just to briefly summarize the various Talk page sections above for your easy access. As I've said before, that if Sarah is actively improving the article, and especially if Ceoil, Moderninst, and you are joining in now to fix the article to get it to FA status, then by all means do this. However, at present there is no commitment from Sarah to do this, and her edits have dropped off to less than a mere trickle on this article. It appears that she has not read any of the main Hitchcock books such as the central 800-page PM biography, and that she has substituted a heavy reliance on keyword searches using Google books as a substitute over and against individuals who have actually read the books on Hitchcock. Keyword searches using Google books is not a substitute for actually reading the Hitchcock books, and Sarah does not appear to accept this very basic fact. If you can get Sarah to indicate that she is actively improving this biography at this time, then please get her to indicate this since she appears to have moved away to the Woody Allen biography, and her conversion of the Hitchcock article seems completely stalled. If Sarah does not make plain that she is committing herself to complete her single-handed conversion of the Hitchcock article into her own feminist friendly version of it, then what I said about going to a draft page become even more urgent. No one at present knows where she is going with her own feminist friendly version of Hitchcock's biography. There is really only one book on this feminist approach to Hitchcock written by Tania M, and Sarah has not read it either since she relies virtually exclusively on keyword searches using Google books. Under these conditions, my request is now more urgent that if there is no demonstrable commitment from Sarah to complete her own single-handed conversion of the Hitchcock biography, then it should be returned to the version which multiple editors were more than willing to start improving until Sarah took control of the article when the main editor of the article for the last five years Keith D was away for the holidays, as shown on FAC talk here [23]. Bring back the peer-reviewed version from last month in which multiple editors expressed an interest for enhancing and improving as the best chance to move this article toward an FA-nomination. The peer-reviewed copy was perfectly clean of any tags when it was promoted just last month, and that is the version that multiple editors expressed an interest in improving. The recently promoted peer-viewed version from just last month remains the best version Wikipedia currently has and is the best chance for improving this article towards FA-nomination. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm about to log out, and read the first three sentences or so and basically stopped. In reply to those sentences: no I am not joining the editing here, I'm almost completely inactive, but have seen the activity here, came in to add some sources elsewhere and took the opportunity to comment. Whether or not a person edits a lot on one day and less on another day is up to them. We're not tied to this place and moreover it's really hard to edit against stiff headwinds. I have read the talk page and when someone posts repeatedly these types of comments, the headwinds have gone beyond gale force. I'm calling bullshit on the accusations re not reading books and relying exclusively on g-books. First it's personal attack, second we always assume good faith, and third, I only know of a small handful of editors on this project who are as careful about sourcing, who goes out of their way to get the book in hand than Sarah. As it happens I'm one of the others and in a single dip into the article I found mistakes that we've been publishing for years. These mistakes need to be fixed and anyone can edit. We don't say who can or cannot edit a page. It's just not on. Nor do we accuse someone of relying on snippets without knowing whether or not that's fact. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This has been covered extensively concerning Sarah's extensive use of keyword search on Google books and she is free to indicate if she has actually read any of the Hitchcock books. If you are not offering to edit the Hitchcock article then this is more indication that the current Sarah version is not being supported. You should read the entire post above since there were many editors willing to help on the peer reviewed version of the Hitchcock biography from last month on the link which I provided [24], and no-one seems to understand what direction Sarah is taking with her partially converted version of the Hitchcock biography which she appears to no longer be editing herself. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not editing anything. Period. For reasons that are private. Saying that by not offering to edit here is an endorsement of your position is very wrong. I whole-heartedly endorse the direction the article is taking, if that wasn't made abundantly clear in previous posts. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
If you are substantively contributing to the Hitchcock article then you would be the first one to join Sarah on her own version of the Hitchcock article. If you are just thanking her for her previous editing at Ezra Pound then that does not help here on the Hitchcock article. No-one is substantively adding to her edits here and she appears to have dropped out of the substantive editing of the Hitchcock biography. The main point needs to be the improvement of the Hitchcock biography and choosing the best point from which to do this. No-one seems to understand the direction of Sarah's editing here or the direction she was taking. The previous peer-viewed version is the one which many editors wanted to help improve and offers the best starting point to continue improvement. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Article history

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

ManKnowsInfinity (MKI) seeks to create a myth that the article was being happily written by Keith D and himself, and that I cruelly snatched it and began steering it in a different direction. Here are some facts.

  • Keith D has edited the article on and off since July 2012. Most of his edits have been minor, often not marked as such. He hasn't added content or sources. He has reverted vandalism, converted manual refs to templates, added alt text, etc (and, of course, that kind of article maintenance is important). His edits to the article are here.
  • MKI has edited the article since July 2017. Most of his edits are minor, although none are marked as such. Many involve changing access dates. He did add some words and sources. The sources of his that I've checked so far (by no means all) have had missing page numbers, wrong page numbers, or I haven't been able to find where the source supports the text. His edits are here.
    Two examples of the sourcing problems: here MKI added a reference—Bellour 2000, p. 217—after two paragraphs of the years-old, mostly unsourced Storyboards section. In 2015 someone added Bellour 2000, p. 217, after the final paragraph, so it appears that MKI simply copied that source to the top two paragraphs. But Bellour 2000, p. 217, is about Marnie. Second example: here MKI added a paragraph sourced to Woods 2015, pp. 71–89. I can't find that material anywhere in Woods.

In August MKI nominated the article for GA, and unfortunately it was promoted. I say unfortunately because the promotion led to the view that the article was nearly FAC-ready. Keith took it to peer review, and reviewers began discussing the issues. Brian pointed out missing sources and other problems. I started listing issues until I realized how extensive they were, at which point I withdrew from the review and began fixing them. (The problems are considerable and are listed here.)

So that's the situation. The personal attacks that MKI has been posting are baseless and bizarre. No one has called the article ugly; no one has arrived to add citation tags to my edits (I've been adding the tags myself); I'm not relying on Google preview; and the claim that I'm abandoning the article is just too strange (I wonder why I'd want to do that!). I would appreciate it very much if those comments would stop, not least because they're making the talk page unusable. SarahSV (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks in the comments, Keith D has been the main editor of the Hitchcock biography for the past 5 years, and I have helped out for the last 6 months largely because I have a large Hitchcock library to help bring the previous verison of the article to successful GA promotion. If I stated that you appear not to have read the main 800-page PM biography on Hitchcock, it is because I have seen no evidence of your having read it after watching you edits for the past 3 weeks. You appear to only use keyword searches on Google books as a substitute for actually reading the books, but if you have actually read it, or the equally important Hitchcock encyclopedia, then all you have to do is say so, "I have read X" or "I have read Y". Up to this date, you have not said so either way even though you are welcome to clear this up right here and now.
Your denigration of the GA reviewer by calling him "unfortunate", @Drown Soda:, who promoted the article just last month is mystifying. Drown Soda is an experienced editor who was particularly thorough in his review and he is also an experienced editor from WikiProject Women writers as well. For you to challenge his competence and his good faith in agreeing to do the review and the promotion is inappropriate and I wish to defend his efforts on the Hitchcock article and to thank him for his contribution time. If you are upgrading the article to FA nomination you need to state this now since your edits have fallen off to less than a mere trickle now, and your version of the article remains with the appearance of being tag bombed, and with a lead section that looks considerably worse than the one submitted by Keith D for peer review just last month. Although other editors have memory of your working on the Ezra Pound article, that experience does not really help here on the Hitchcock article which looks extensively tag bombed with no-one fixing the article to improve it. Your converted version of the article looks like you have walked away from it, and no-one knows what you had in mind with your single-handed conversion of the Hitchcock biography into the unrecognizable, non-peer reviewed form you have left it in.
In the absence of your constructively fixing the tag bombing by other editors of your own converted version of the article, there appears to be no option but to return the article to its promoted peer-reviewed version from just last month which multiple editors were highly interested in improving and enhancing toward FA-nomination. By comparison, you appear to have switched over to the Woody Allen article for your own edits and your edits on Hitchcock have trickled down to nearly nothing with no sustained support from other editors. No-one appears to know where to are going with your edits on Hitchcock and what end-goal you have in mind for your single-handed conversion of this biography into your own preferred format. Bring back the peer-reviewed version of the article from just last month and let the constructive editing, from before you started your single-handed conversion effort, to return in order to continue to improve the promoted version of the biography from just last month. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Two things are clear at this point. First, this is very disruptive and shows no signs of stopping. Second, MKI has done exactly this at other articles with another account, and was blocked for disruption. I'm currently pondering the wisdom of naming the account and asking for admin action. Perhaps MKI would simply prefer to leave. I do know that we can't keep dealing with it, because it damages articles if we don't act and it's incredibly time-consuming if we do. SarahSV (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The only two things clear here are that you are the one who is opening multiple threads on this issue and that you have been asked by other editors to stop doing this. The other issue is that you appear not to have read any of the Hitchcock books at all, and that you are using keyword searches on Google books as a poor substitute for your not ever having read any of these Hitchcock books at all. This appears to be an edit pattern with you since you cannot state even now whether you have read the main 800-page Hitchcock biography by PM or not. Its a simple question and you are evading it. Is this the way you edit on all your other pages? Do you consistently circumvent actually reading the books which you cite by your excessive use of the keyword search on Google books? My request is again to state that your original purpose, as you stated it, to convert the Hitchcock article into your own version of a feminist friendly version of the biography appears to have been a very poor idea which you should voluntarily retract, so that a good version of the article can be constructively edited by individuals who have a genuine interest in Hitchcock studies. Your use of multiple user names on your own account here has also been disruptive for other users as they have already informed you SarahSV, SlimVirgin, and whatever else. The Hitchcock article should be returned promptly to the peer reviewed version from last month and you appear to have nothing more to add even to your own semi-converted version of the Hitchcock biography at this time.
@Keith D: This is starting to go into circles now and I am repeating the same things several times. Possibly you could decide if you want to go with the peer reviewed version of the article from just last month, or, if you want to keep this semi-completed version of Sarah's semi-conversion into a feminist friendly version of Hitchcock which is not peer reviewed. I have largely kept this thread open on your behalf because of your experience as a steward of the Hitchcock article. Its really up to you since Sarah has already frozen me out of editing her version of the article for the last 2 weeks by circumventing BRD against me through the use of her sys ops authority here: [25]. She will apparently continue opening new threads indefinitely to circumvent the main issue of her very poor idea to make a feminist friendly version of Hitchcock's biography. Its your call as to which version you prefer to see placed here. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
My suggestion to MKI is read this: WP:STICK and walk away. As I have said before I find this article to be terrific and it needs to be continued and moved forward. SarahSV has done a great job and should be thanked...Modernist (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I agree with every word Modernist said above. And, Sarah is right that these tactics have been used elsewhere under a different account. It was immediately obvious to me. The behavior is clearly disruptive and needs to stop. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
ManKnowsInfinity is wrong here on a number of levels - Sarah's source based and with-in policy edits stand on their own footing, and *she* left the citation-needed tags, not the imagined army you claim. Indeed, the earlier attempts at promotion were premature, and Keith D & you have contributed less than 6.5% of the article content, combined. This reminds me of similar issues at Jane Austen, which older editors might remember.
To be clear, any rollback to an earlier, weaker version will require consensus based point-by-point refutation of the hundreds edits made since help was requested and ManKnowsInfinity I'm not sure how much credibility you have left here. Ceoil (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfred_Hitchcock/Archive_3&oldid=822738337"