Talk:The Handmaid's Tale (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inaccessible link

The link for what is currently reference 5 seems to be behind a paywall:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/books/review/margaret-atwood-handmaids-tale-age-of-trump.html

I am not sure the Wikipedia standard for situations like this so perhaps someone more informed can deal with it. 72.208.150.248 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Just klicked the link. There is no paywall. Are you sure, this is the link you meant? There is a text, nothing to pay for. So the source is valid.--Robberey1705 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It also seems to work fine for me.— TAnthony^Talk 20:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

NY Times does have a paywall, however it only kicks in after reading a certain number of articles. I don't remember what the number is, but if your being asked to pay you've already opened the max number of free reads for the day. 71.235.188.9 (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. But that doesn't make it a general paywall, as you don't have to log in or pay per view for the article. It is accessable for "normal" readers, and therefore is accessable for everyone without general restrictions. Therefore the source is okay for wikipedia.--Robberey1705 (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• It's also worth noting that NYT won't show you the paywall even if you go over the limit as long as the referrer is Google. So you can always Google the article title and then click on the search result to view it without issues. V2Blast (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Serena Joy as televangelist

She's a former televangelist in the book but I don't believe this has been mentioned in the series. Given that series sometimes diverge from the source material, is it premature to describe her as a former televangelist? 71.212.25.81 (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It is now obvious that the series is diverging from the book. In the series, Serena is an author and not a televangelist. If a registered editor won't clean this up, I will. 71.212.25.81 (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any grounds for saying the series is set in an alternative present, rather than the near future? PatGallacher (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

reversion

How is this any different than the "pro-Trump"/"anti-Trump" debate earlier mentioned, @QuizzicalBee? Those references are still included. Commentators and critics have opinions, that may not be neutral. This is unsurprising. This writer published a view that was not covered by the article, so I thought it would be a good addition. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It's quite simple, really. You wrote the entry as a form of attack against those you believe to be "leftists". That tack may work over at Conservapedia, but it's not the way we do things around here. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I came across an page relevant to this subject. I reviewed the article here. The viewpoint expressed in the critique seemed to be a unique one that was not represented in the WP article yet. I summarized it as clearly and succinctly as I could, and cited the source. That's what WP editors do. It may be that the viewpoint, or the subject matter itself, is contentious. Okay, that's fine. Plenty of WP articles cover issues where strong disagreement exists, and we document the various verifiable views. The edit was reverted, and I started discussion on the article talk page, as per normal procedure. So far, nothing is out of the ordinary. What is unusual is the "stop disruptive editing" message you left on my talk page. There's been no edit war, no disruptive comments, nothing but normal procedure and good faith on my part. If anyone is attacking here, it seems to be you. So, why are you ascribing motives to me? Do you have an agenda? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that the comment is first of all pushing an agenda that is separate and outside the context of the work in question, and second that it's not phrased as a critical response, but as a statement of fact. Here's the comment: "The double-standard of actual religiously-motivated (Islamic) sexism being minimized in society while fictional religiously-motivated (Christian) sexism as entertainment is lauded has been pointed out." Thus it is bringing into the comment an agenda regarding a separate issue not referenced in the article (i.e. Islamic sexism in contemporary American society) and it's saying that the double-standard has been noted, accepting as a given that this statement is of fact and not of the opinion of the reviewer. It then includes a very inflammatory comment that is also pushing an agenda. There are certainly ways to include a critical response to the work from evangelical Christians, but the way you did it does not adhere to Wikipedia standards. QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll grant that the cited work could have been summarized better. I did it in a hurry. But I thought its presence in the reception section, amidst other reviews, would nonetheless make it quite clear that it was the opinion of the reviewer. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, the passage cited by the material User:ChristTrekker wrote equates the "Christian bashing" that is allegedly present to the Holocaust, which is beyond grossly irresponsible and offensive, IMO. In addition, the material came from WND, which has been noted for its promotion of fringe conspiracy theories, and is considered to be a far right website. It has also been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a website that peddles White nationalism. I may be behind on some of the new rules on Wikipedia, but I am very sure we have not been transformed into Stormfront. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 01:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You cite SPLC as a reliable source? That's from just the first screen of a Google search. The criticisms are so numerous that it should give anyone pause. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

And yet, the sources you cited are all conservative sources, which implies bias. I would have said the same thing if the sources you cited above are all from HuffPost and Democracy Now. Casting aside the SPLC issue, the line that equates the alleged “anti-Christian bias” to the Holocaust was chosen by you, and inserted into the quote section of the cite, that implies a concerning bias on your part, and judging by the fact that you’ve been here for 10+ years, you should have known better. That line was needlessly inflammatory and completely inconsistent with the article at hand. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 16:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Episode Summaries.

I am editing the episode summaries to conform with the Style Manual, removing unnecessary details and making them more concise, but endeavoring to retain the main plot elements and key events within each episode. Ozflashman (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance template removed, summaries conform with Style Manual and naming inconsistencies addressed. Ozflashman (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Description of Gilead's government as "Christian theonomic"

Recent edits by Matteo Bocchialini removed the introduction's reference to Gilead's government as "Christian theonomic". Gilead has been described this way by reliable sources which were cited in the article, prior to being removed by Matteo Bocchialini's edits. This language also matches the language used in the article on the book. It seems to me that it would be appropriate to restore this language, but I wanted to see what the general consensus was. CataracticPlanets (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that User:CataracticPlanets. I have restored the word "theonomic" to the paragraph, although I can understand why the adjective "Christian" might be misleading per User:Matteo Bocchialini's edit summary (I was the one, however, who added the adjective "Christian" in the article to begin with). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The "time before"

From the Plot section: Offred (...) can remember the "time before". This sentence makes it sound like the society's changes happened much prior the events of the story, when in fact it's been just a few years, possibly no more than three. Literally EVERYBODY can remember the "time before". Kumagoro-42 (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

colours

The article says "Marthas (who are housekeepers and cooks) wear green, and Wives (who are expected to run their households) wear blue". I have the impression the colour coding in the TV series does not follow the book, and the Wives wear an Emerald Green, and little mention is made of Marthas. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"Little mention is made of Marthas". Uh? They're pretty much in every episode. Rita, Commander Waterford's Martha, is a series regular in season 2. But I agree that their "uniform" doesn't look green to me. More like light gray, or light brown, or dirty white. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the Marthas are depicted wearing green capes, but you only see it when they're outside the house, which is rare. You can see green-caped Marthas in the episode where one of them is shot in the street (that would be Season 2, Episode 7). Kumagoro-42 (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kumagoro-42: Augusta2 meant that little mention was made in the BOOK. Believe it or not, there were things called books before they were driven into extinction by the television. :P Jdavi333 (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

We're precisely discussing the difference between the clothes' colors as portrayed in the book and the TV series. It's stated right there in Augusta2's comment, so your sarcasm is entirely unwarranted, on top of being unhelpful. Also, the book does mention the Marthas and the color they wear, and Augusta2's last sentence was about the TV series, not the book. The wives do not wear emerald green in the book. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

References to Trump and Pence need to be deleted.

Deletion of these names does not change what was written and the underlying references (that the reader can examine) are still maintained. Currently the US is undergoing anti-Trump hysteria (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Many articles, such as those cited, simply throw in negative Trump comments for the sake of doing it. Citing these articles is still appropriate, but specifically extending their biased negative opinion into the main Wikipedia pages is unfounded. TheBlackMark (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

To both editors involved here, please be careful for 3RR violation, or page protection will be required. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you for your comment Jdavi333. I do not wish to get involved in a "revert" fight. However, the user profile for BoogerD highlights himself as anti-Trump, which he is entitled to be. Unfortunately,the implication is that this specific web-page has been tainted by his political agenda. This page needs to be more neutral. TheBlackMark (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC).

---

It appears, that my contributions (based on published articles) are being expunged from this page. Seems that questioning the politically motivated anti-Trump bias of this article is not be be tolerated nor questioned. Moreover, those deleting my contribution have not explained themselves on this talk page or offered compromise language. This is constitutes a form of censorship.

I do not wish to get into a "revert" war, so all that I can do is make an appeal that this article be revised to be neutral in character as it should be. TheBlackMark (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If @User:BoogerD does not reply to this discussion within one more day (72 hours after it was started), I think it will be safe to say that we can change the article back to the more neutral position, as per WP:NEUTRAL. Jdavi333 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

How is the current text not neutral? It merely states that the legitimacy of parallels to Trump/Pence were heavily discussed, not that such parallels are necessarily legitimate. It is well sourced and 'both sides' of the debate are well represented. --SubSeven (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Here's my response. I have had this page in my watchlist and I noticed that someone had changed a section of the page. I have made minimal edits to this page and I am not the original editor who added this section referring to Trump/Pence. The user starting this discussion had included their reasoning for removing information that had been on the page for awhile. Their reasoning didn't seem justified (the text was never politically biased but rather mentioned that their had been a debate as to whether a parallel could be drawn between the show and the election of Trump and then included citations on both side of the argument) and so I reverted it. They kept removing it without providing an adequate reasoning in their edit summary. TLDR: The article was neutral before. A new editor came in and removed text with a justified reason. I reverted it back to the way it was before. I am no longer interested in discussing it personally. – BoogerD (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I find it hard to say that the current state of America has anything to do with what is happening in the show. The Huffington Post is just obsessed with writing anything anti-Trump. And not to make any personal attacks, but it seems that @TheBlackMark simply assumed that @BoogerD was politically motivated by reading his user page and seeing the anti-Trump template. I think to even try to mention the current political state of the country in the context of the show is idiotic, seeing as the book was written 30+ years ago. Therefore, the entire "debate" mentioned in the article is moot, as is the mention of ISIS and Radical Islamic Terrorism. The whole paragraph should be deleted. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not an editorial. The articles sourced that make the comparison are opinion columns, not news or research. The paragraph on the novel's page that mentions the President should also be removed. Just submitting my 2 cents. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I have added a link to this discussion in the novel's talk page to perhaps get a broader discussion started and resolve this mess. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Couple thoughts here. A television series (or a film for that matter) is by its very nature an adaptation. So when the novel was published is irrelevant. The television series was developed by writers in the wake of the 2016 presidential election so it is entirely plausible that they were influenced by the real-world events. Additionally, the sentence (included in the reception section) merely mentions that there is a debate regarding the influence of the election on the series. As it stands now, there are around like 10 different sources included, that express both viewpoints of the argument, that can be found in the references section. I'd have to agree with what @SubSeven said: "How is the current text not neutral? It merely states that the legitimacy of parallels to Trump/Pence were heavily discussed, not that such parallels are necessarily legitimate. It is well sourced and 'both sides' of the debate are well represented." The article is not taking a political stance as it currently exists but rather it is commenting that many articles have been written by many reliable secondary sources from both sides of the political spectrum.

One last thing. I've been a Wikipedia editor for a long time. My primary area of interest on here is editing Film and Television pages. I do have an interest in politics in my real life but I don't go out of my to edit pages regarding that here on Wikipedia. The reason for that is discussion such as these. The are perfectly appropriate, and possibly stimulating, as long as editors respect each other and act politely. However, I am just not interested in exercising a great deal of energy towards those conversations. I'd rather devote them to things that require less analytical thought. Honestly, I kind of regret getting in the middle of this but the issue seemed rather clear cut from the beginning. So, yeah, I hope this is my final time poking my head over here. I'd much rather leave it to you all. – BoogerD (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Included a link to this discussion over at Wikiproject:Television. Link here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Discussion Regarding the Debate Over the Possible Influence of the 2016 US Presidential Election on The Handmaid's Tale television series. – BoogerD (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You write, "The television series was developed by writers in the wake of the 2016 presidential election..." Except the series was ordered in April 2016, before President Trump was even the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. Filming began in September of that year, 2 months before the election. The fact that some opinion writers are reading more into this than mere coincidence just does not fit in to the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you fully understand the production process. But television series are constantly being re-written and new drafts are being produced up through the moment they are actually filmed. Again, "the writers" that are cited in the article are contributors to major publications and the very fact that this many news sources were debating this "influence" is in itself notable and worthy of being included in the series' reception section. – BoogerD (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Trying to reason out for ourselves what the TV show's writers are thinking accomplishes nothing. Many secondary sources have discussed this issue (not just HuffPost), that's why it is in the article. --SubSeven (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, that's what I was getting at in the second sentence of my last post there. – BoogerD (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said over at the TV project, we need to accurately reflect the reliable sources and their critical commentary, not make OR assumptions or allow our own political leanings to cloud our judgement. As for the specific call out of both Trump and Pence, a compromise could be to use the much cleaner and more concise Presidency of Donald Trump link instead. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've made any assumptions here and during the entire time this has been debated I've kept politics out of it. My original intervening stemmed from the fact that show's article is in my watchlist, I happened to see some content removed, and the user who made the removal edit did not seem to adequately reason their deletion in their edit summary. Whether the removed sentences had any political content in them was irrelevant; they were properly sourced with a number of reliable, secondary sources (representing both sides of the debate) and the current language being used was politically neutral. Let me reiterate: I was not the original editor to add this section to the article. I almost always avoid political content on Wikipedia as its not why I edit here. I was just reverting a bad edit. Honestly, I'm so sorry I ever got involved in this fruitless debate. It's been a fairly large waste of my time and energy contributing during the last few days. Please keep me out of any further discussion. Hopefully this will be my last message in regards to any of this. Best, BoogerD (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That alternate wording looks fine, if it would satisfy everybody then sure. --SubSeven (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I will accept, as a compromise, the deletion of text specifically mentioning Trump/Pence that instead uses a link to refer the reader to the Presidency of Donald Trump link.

---

My belief it that the phrase: "following Donald Trump and Mike Pence's elections as President and Vice President of the United States," should be deleted as unnecessary and that the phrase is out of sync with the time-line. The debate on the nature of the Handmaid's preceded the election of Trump and Pence. I am amiable to other revisions.

Based on current divisive politics in the US, I do not believe that this text was authored with neutrality in mind, but as a keyword nod (acquiescence) to the those "resisting" Trump. For example the phrase: "There was much debate on whether parallels could be drawn between the series (and by extension, the book it is based on) and American society following Donald Trump and Mike Pence's elections as President and Vice President of the United States." could have been written: "There was much debate on whether parallels could be drawn between the series (and by extension, the book it is based on) and American society following the rise of the Sun on November 8, 2016." Not to also toss in the fact that the writing of the novel preceded the election of Trump, that Season 1, was probably close to being finished by November 8, 2016, and that discussions concerning the novel's theme were well underway prior to November 8, 2016. As @Jdavi333 notes, "The fact that some opinion writers are reading more into this than mere coincidence just does not fit in to the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia."

Regarding what @BoogerD and @SubSeven wrote, I find their response to be flimsy. They assert that "It merely states that the legitimacy of parallels to Trump/Pence were heavily discussed, not that such parallels are necessarily legitimate. It is well sourced and 'both sides' of the debate are well represented." If both sides were well represented there should have been a comment/analysis that faction "A" believes that Trump/Pence are the evil messiahs bringing a theocracy to the US and that there is an opposing faction "B" which believes the series to be vile left wing propaganda. There was no notation nor analysis. Furthermore, my references to the National Review article, "Art for Politics’ Sake" was removed. The removal of this reference implies a degree of suppression, despite assertions that the existing language is somehow "neutral".

The Handmaid's Tail is a powerful and engrossing story, but the divisive nature to the political landscape in the US today has been a negative distraction that has regrettably tainted the narrative. At this point, who proposes a revision to the text assuming that the consensus desires a revision? TheBlackMark (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll be more explicit. When I say both sides of the debate are represented, I mean that there are multiple SOURCES given to illustrate both sides. If you want more verbiage in the article to explain what the sources are saying, that's reasonable, but certainly not your example: "faction "A" believes that Trump/Pence are the evil messiahs bringing a theocracy to the US and that there is an opposing faction "B" which believes the series to be vile left wing propaganda". I don't know if that's a reflection of the type of media you consume, or what, because it certainly is nowhere near the viewpoints reflected by the sources. Maybe you can actually read them and a more nuanced discussion can be had? --SubSeven (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not interested in generating more verbiage. My use of the word "faction" was only for draft illustrative purposes. Prior to your post above, I have been reading additional reviews that have also included interviews with Margaret Atwood. My perception, based on reading these articles, was that many of those reviewing the Handmaid's Tail and interviewing Ms. Atwood were the ones fostering anti-Trump hysteria.

It appears that Ms. Atwood avoided taking this type of malicious "bait", which she could have enthusiastically endorsed since she admits to not liking Trump. She didn't. In an an essay ("Margaret Atwood on What ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ Means in the Age of Trump"), she wrote: "First, is “The Handmaid’s Tale” a “feminist” novel? If you mean an ideological tract in which all women are angels and/or so victimized they are incapable of moral choice, no. If you mean a novel in which women are human beings — with all the variety of character and behavior that implies — and are also interesting and important, and what happens to them is crucial to the theme, structure and plot of the book, then yes. In that sense, many books are “feminist.”. In her essay she made similar defusing comments concerning religion and that the story was not predicative. All rational remarks that I can easily accept and reinforce my opinion that the Handmaid's Tail is excellent story that is independent of the transient anti-Trump hysteria.

I was disappointed to see that the same text in question has been duplicated on the novel page. For the reasons that have been expressed, I would encourage the deletion of this text on the novel page.

Finally, as noted above in my response to SubSeven that I will accept, as a compromise, the deletion of text specifically mentioning Trump/Pence that instead uses a link to refer the reader to the Presidency of Donald Trump link. TheBlackMark (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Updated in a manner that I hope matches the intent of what SubSeven proposed. If not change. TheBlackMark (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Two things. 1) The response by BoogerD simply restores the text to the prior version and absolutely makes no attempt to propose text that would conform to a compromise. 2) All my references that I added were also deleted. That is unacceptable and a form on censorship.

As I have indicated, I do not wish to get into a "revert war", however BoogerD has shown no inclination to suggest and/or propose a neutral compromise. As a Wikipedia contributor, it would seem that BoogerD would take a degree of initiative to consider modifying text in response to the comments of others. Furthermore my additional references, that do not even affect the language in question, were deleted. TheBlackMark (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Two things. 1) I have nothing against the added references. They seem to be properly formatted and from reliable, secondary sources. 2) I reverted the edit not because of the addition of the references but rather because the user that made the edit completely disregarded the "compromise" that had been seemingly agreed upon. I don't feel the need to suggest or propose anything because it appears above that a number of editors that have engaged in this discussion, including TheBlackMark, have already come to an agreement on what the change should be. – BoogerD (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

TheBlackMark, are you feeling all right? There already was a compromise, that you agreed to!! --SubSeven (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

How? The text has not been altered and still references Trump/Pence. "There was much debate on whether parallels could be drawn between the series (and by extension, the book it is based on) and American society following Donald Trump and Mike Pence's elections as President and Vice President of the United States, respectively." I have not seen any proposed text. Essentially you leave it to me, to make the change and then revert it. That does not seem to be a cooperative approach to resolving this issue. TheBlackMark (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You had agreed to a specific change as evidenced here:

"Finally, as noted above in my response to SubSeven that I will accept, as a compromise, the deletion of text specifically mentioning Trump/Pence that instead uses a link to refer the reader to the Presidency of Donald Trump link. TheBlackMark (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)"

However when you went about making your edit to the page, in addition to adding references which was fine, you changed the text to read, "The release of Season 1 continued examination on whether parallels could be drawn between the series and American society." This is not at all what you or any of the other editors engaged in this discussion on this talk page agreed on. You are most certainly entitled to make the change but one would assume it would be to what was agreed to. – BoogerD (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe that I made the change in good faith. I even stated that if you did not agree, to make a revision. However no revision was offered, the text was merely reverted back to the original text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlackMark (talk • contribs) 18:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, the edit was made in good faith. I'm an optimistic person so I'd like to give all editors the benefit of the doubt and assume most edits are done in good faith. However, I don't know you so I can't say I know one way or the other what motivated your edit. What I can say for certain is this: I am under no obligation to edit the main article or to be responsible for the formation of a new sentence or series of sentences. Additionally, the revert was entirely justified as the edit being reverted completely disregarded the agreed upon compromise. – BoogerD (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I made the changes which were agreed upon. Hopefully that settles things?! TheBlackMark, if you want to add references, it's probably best to not bundle them in the same edit with changes to the disputed text. --SubSeven (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

In reviewing the discussion, I do have to acknowledge that I incorrectly attributed the following to SubSeven. "As for the specific call out of both Trump and Pence, a compromise could be to use the much cleaner and more concise Presidency of Donald Trump link instead. - adamstom97 ". That me led me to a misinterpretation. My apologies. TheBlackMark (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Season 2 music

Each (or most of them?) episode has a piece of popular music played, either during the main part (eg This Woman's Work by Kate Bush) or during the end credits (eg Venus (Shocking Blue song)). Please can these be added to the episode summaries? PS in the UK C4 interrupts these with info on what's on next. John a s (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Kevin McE's Reverts

Hello! User:KevinMcE has now, for the fourth time (first revert, second revert, third revert, fourth revert) removed information, against the wishes of multiple editors, from the Plot section of the article concerning June's discussion of wishing Rita to be her daughter's godmother. This is an important aspect of the episode, and in fact, the entire season 2, with the article from Billboard labeling it as being among the 9 Major Moments From 'The Handmaid's Tale' Season 2, Episode 9 'Smart Power'. Episode 9 also has another discussion with Aunt Lydia about godparents; prior to answering June, she says that she will not tolerate insolence, as godparents/baptisms are banned in Gilead (Rita also shed light on this). June concludes her thoughts on this concept at the end of the episode with a revelation that Moira was Hannah's godmother. With reliable sources discussing this issue, I'm unsure why User:KevinMcE wishes to remove it? User:MBlaze Lightning seems to agree with me as he/she also reverted User:KevinMcE's deletion of sourced information. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• What do you mean by multiple editors? Do two wrongs make one right? All of KevinMcE's edits have been well summarized. Cliveplug (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — Cliveplug (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have no wish to remove mention of this element, I simply think it should be proportionate, and it is adequately dealt with in the sentence beginning "June pleads with". All of this has been fully explained in edit summaries, so should not be news to you at all, and I would ask you not to make assumptions about my intentions, nor to misrepresent my edit history: what you describe above as the "second revert"'(sic)' does not even touch upon the episode in question.

As to the reversions by MBlaze Lightning, there is no knowing what that editor's thoughts are, as they have provided no useful edit summaries, and have reintroduced nonsense such as reference to citizens when we have no knowledge of what citizenship in Gilead consists of or to whom it is open, and a fourth, appallingly badly written, source where three already attest to something that is unlikely to be contested.

It is not in the plot section, and your argument is highly inconsistent as your apparent preferred version makes no reference at all to the request to Lydia nor her response, which has potential to be far more relevant to future episodes.

You really need to explain on what basis you consider it to be "an important aspect of...in fact, the entire season 2". That is certainly not upheld by the cited article. There are nine issues referred to in that article, at least 4 of which are unmentioned in the summary, and that publication has similar lists, similarly only partially included in the summaries here, for other episodes. I am not arguing for the summaries to reflect that set , or any other particular set, of reviews, but simply asking for the evidence that the specific mention of godparents has any particular importance in the plot development.

Watching in the UK, I have only seen as far as episode 11 of series 2. If something has happened in the two subsequent episodes to make this highly relevant, then by all means elucidate me. In the absence of this, and given that with no infant baptism practised in Gilead the issue of godparents is moot, the "June pleads with" sentence seems adequate and proportionate. Kevin McE (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

You've already crossed 3RR, now removing the cited information for the fifth time. I have already provided a reliable source that shows the importance of the detail that you removed; the Billboard article I referenced above puts this in bold, "Rita’s Godparent Audition". The sentence is indeed important as it provides the viewer with background on Gilead, something the viewer learns more about in each episode--Christianity and its associated traditions are no longer allowed. It seems that you do not wish to include the detail because you simply WP:DONTLIKEIT. Anupam^Talk 17:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to reply to my post, you really need to read it. Apart from your inaccurate counting, I have pointed out that the Bilboard article puts 9 elements in bold, and several others are totally absent from this summary. The same publication, as already mentioned, has up to 12 highlighted elements with other episodes, but you do not seem to consider those to be a determining factor in the summary of every other episode. I put it to you, therefore, that this Billboard reference is a handy backup to your preference rather than something that you honestly believe makes inclusion essential. If I am wrong, I expect to see you rewrite every episode summary so that it complies with the impressions of the journalist at Billboard as a matter of priority. Christianity, in a particular form, is mandatory in Gilead, not "no longer allowed", even if some traditions (not essential to Christianity) have been outlawed. As for your suggestion that I don't like it, I have already answered that as well: there are two sentences referencing the notion in my suggested version. What appears likely, in the grounds of your explanation here, is that your own theological perspective makes this important to you, but not essential to the understanding of the programme. Kevin McE (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Anupam. Not only Billboard Magazine, but PureWow also mentions it.[1] I don't see a good reason for the edit warring by Kevin McE and if I see it again, I'll file a report at WP:AN3. There is an obvious consensus to keep the information sourced by reliable citations. I should also note that June mentioning the concept of godparents three times in the show demonstrates its importance to her and to the episode as a whole. Rita's discussion of baptisms being prohibited in Gilead, along with the accompanying godparent tradition sheds light on the setting of The Handmaid's Tale, allowing the reader to understand that Christianity, the predominant religion in the United States, became effectively banned in Gilead. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 17:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

An interesting insight into your own perspective on the programme there: I see the series as being largely about the unfettered imposition of Christianity, in a particular form. If you are trying to make some point that Christianity cannot exist without infant baptism, or the concept of godparents, then you have a very different debate to present, and not one that is relevant here. The concept of looking after the child (not referred to on all three occasions as a godparent) is mentioned twice in the summary as I would propose it; that is already a full and generous accommodation within a 9 line summary of a one hour programme.

Yes, it does mention it on that purewow.com summary: the large text at the top of the page says, "Offred tries to make sure her baby will be cared for after her time with the Waterfords is up," without any mention of infant baptism or godparents at that level. So the writer there would presumably be perfectly content with the "June pleads with..." sentence.

Do you have any intention of presenting meaningful reasons why your preferred text is superior and more relevant, rather than resorting to procedural threats? Kevin McE (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:MBlaze Lightning for your comments, especially for noting the additional reliable source that demonstrates the importance of godparents in the episode. For User:Kevin McE, the issue was not about your minor wording changes apart from your removal of the godparents-related sentence. As such, I've restored those. The problem is your continued removal of the godparents-related sentence, which now, three users have restored (Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C). Since you do not have consensus for your removal, you are welcome to discuss here, rather than edit warring, for which you have been warned. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Anupam and MBlaze that the godparent request was significant and that it seems reasonable to include it. DynaGirl (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Which really only demonstrates that you have not read this discussion. I have not suggested anywhere that it should not be included, only debated the proportion of the episode that was about it. Kevin McE (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you even read the Pure Wow article that User:MBlaze Lightning provided? You claim that the article is "without any mention of infant baptism or godparents" when they are mentioned several times. For starters, there is a large heading in the article called "Now Accepting Godparent Applications". Let me provide you some quotes from the article in question, since you could not find them:

Offred tries a different angle and asks Rita to watch over the baby like a godmother when she’s gone. Rita points out that they don’t baptize kids here but says she’ll do her best given the whole Waterfords and Isaac situation. After Rita leaves, Offred pats her stomach, relieved, and says, “There you go. I got you.”

Offred asks if she’s familiar with the term godmother and wonders if she’d help keep an eye on the baby because, “any man that would hurt a woman would hurt a child.” Alarms are going off in Aunt Lydia’s head and although it’s not proper Gilead decorum, she promises to look after the baby and even tells Offred that she was a godmother to her sister’s child before Gilead came into power.

This news brings back the fire in Offred’s belly and she muses, “Moira is Hannah’s godmother. She got out. It was impossible, and she did it ...”

Both this article, as well as the Billboard article deal with television-series assessments are are reliable sources. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability. The text that you keep removing from the article, against consensus, is based on these reliable sources. You falsely claim that "If you are trying to make some point that Christianity cannot exist without infant baptism, or the concept of godparents, then you have a very different debate to present". I have no intention of introducing that to this article, or any article on Wikipedia. I simply added the plot summary that was based on reliable sources. If you find that there are additional details from the Billboard article that you'd like to add, then feel free to do so! I found that the major aspect of the episode concerning baptism/godparents was important rightly have added it. Several other editors have also found it helpful and we have a consensus to keep it. I would therefore recommend that you WP:DROPTHESTICK. I have worked with you on developing this article over several months and have never objected to your additions to the article; you seem hidebound to try to block this relevant material. Perhaps you could, in the spirit of compromise accept it. After all, I restored your changes to the article, understanding your investment in it. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I specifically referred to the headline element of that purewow.com article: you again demonstrate a failure to read what I have written.

If you believe that being referred to in the Billboard episode reviews mandate inclusion in these summaries, will you be rewriting every summary to include everything mentioned therein? If not, your claim that this must be mentioned because it exists there is demonstrated to be insincere.

I note that you apply the comment I made to MBlaze Lightning as being addressed to you: am I to take this as an admission of sockpuppetry, or simply more evidence that you have again failed to read my contributions on this page properly? And a conditional statement cannot be a claim, false or otherwise.

Please explain why you have defended so ardently the request to Rita, and repeatedly deleted the far more significant request, referred to in both the reviews that you have drawn attention to, to Lydia and its response. That does not lend weight to a considered appraisal of the whole episode, nor of adherence to those sources. Kevin McE (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've never had an issue with mentioning June also requesting Aunt Lydia to be her daughter's godmother. My issue was with you removing sourced information about Rita. You're welcome to propose a sentence here, on the talk page, and I'll have a look at it--I probably won't object to its addition since that was an important scene and it is mentioned in reliable sources. I also don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. If someone wants to add content to an article, they must buttress it with a reliable source, such as the article in Billboard and Pure Wow. That's exactly what I did. With respect to my reply, I read all the comments in the discussion and replied to your thoughts. I've been editing here since 2006 and if you honestly think that User:MBlaze Lightning and I are sockpuppets, then file a report--you'll be the one embarrassing yourself and then your future reports won't be taken seriously. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 20:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No, that will be your rude arrogant friend 1990'sguy. Please be sure and pass on your opinion on Sockpuppet accusers to him. Kevin McE (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I have also been here since 2006, so don't be so condescending: "I probably won't object" indeed.

User:172.243.244.217, User:Jamesluckard, User:Callmemirela, User:Andrewbarker1995, User:79.79.242.216, User:66.90.232.185, User:Knoper, User:Dhalh, User:Kelseyann4589, User:SubSeven, User:Asc85 all edited the summary of this episode before either of us touched it, most of them working on a summary that mentioned neither baptism nor godparents, others having material that only referred to godmother in relation to Lydia's nephew (specifically removed by one of them). So it could be argued that the consensus for baptism not being considered important is carried by 13 (those named, plus Cliveplug and me) to four (You, Dynagirl, Accesscrawl and MBL).

You are, I assume, fully aware that summaries of TV programmes are not truly encyclopaedic content, and that the vast majority of them are not referenced: I assume you are aware of this, as none of your other episode summaries are referenced. But why have you repeatedly deleted mention of the request to Lydia at the same time as posting a reference that stresses it? You say that you have no issue with it, but you keep deleting it: this is a sentence that predated your contribution in relation to that article. All I did initially was remove your repetition of what was already present. I guess your habit of not reading my comments that you present yourself as replying to was presaged by your adding this info, important to you for some reason but not to the majority of editors who have worked on this part of the article, without reading the summary that you were editing.

If you have read the purewow.com summary, I am amazed that you can regard that as a reliable source: it is riddled with inaccuracies. But I can see that it meets your requirements by mentioning baptism, so I can understand your willingness to gloss over that.

Not sockpuppets: glad to hear it, although it would have explained your uncannily similar, and to my mind entirely contrary to the writing of the programme, suggestions that Christianity is prohibited in Gilead. But it lends weight to the alternative interpretation: "simply more evidence that you have again failed to read my contributions on this page properly".

You still have not explained why, if inclusion in the Billboard article is held up as reason why this must be included, you are unwilling to commit to including everything the same reviewer mentions in relation to this, or any other episode. Nor have you explained why infant baptism is an important aspect of the entire series. Or why my edits to the summaries of episodes 10 and 11 have anything to do with this discussion of episode 9. Or why you think a conditional statement is a claim. And you have failed to acknowledge that I have never tried to remove reference to the request that these women protect the child, but rather have repeatedly accused me of doing so. Or that it is not in the plot section. Or that the headline element of the purewow.com review omitted all mention of godparents. You see, despite your protestation to the contrary, you have plainly failed to address much of what I have written. Kevin McE (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is talk page being cited by users Accesscrawl and Anupam for reverting edits? No conclusion from this discussion has been reached yet. Cliveplug (talk)— Cliveplug (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DynaGirl, who anonymously added that accusation to Cliveplug's comments, also had her first two Wikipedia contributions on the same page. It is an entirely plausible state of affairs. An apology and withdrawal of accusation would be in order here. Kevin McE (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

You know, I'm reading this, because I was alerted to this discussion because I was referenced in it. I am stunned by the level of detail in discussion, and stubbornness on all sides of this issue. I can respect everyone's passion, but isn't this all a little much? Try to read what has been written so far as a dispassionate observer (which I think I kind of am in this instance), and I think/hope you'll see what I mean. While I enjoy working on Wikipedia (I average about one edit per day across Wikipedia, so I'd say I'm a moderate contributor here), I've promised myself not to get into edit wars with people. Life is too short, and it's not like any of us are getting paid, are we? I've certainly had my frustrations dealing with certain contributors and certain entries over the years. Regarding the basketball player Reggie Lewis, his entry doesn't deal at all with the controversy on the medical opinions that ended up killing him. I carefully wrote that section, and included sources. And someone ended up editing all of it out. Was I annoyed? You bet. You can even read my comments in the Talk section on this matter. I'm pretty sure that someone relating to the Doctor who mis-diagnosed Reggie Lewis follows that entry, and cleans out any suggestion that he made a mistake. But am I going to continue to waste my time making those edits? I am not. Perhaps those here need to step back on this as well. Asc85 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with DynaGirl, Anupam, Accesscrawl, and MBlaze Lightning -- I agree with the retaining the cited sentence Kevin McE / Cliveplug continue to tendentiously remove and that the wording of it should stay as it is. I find Kevin McE / Cliveplug's behavior extremely suspect and have filed a report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kevin McE. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why you think it is important that the request to Lydia not be included in the episode summary. I have tried asking Anumap several times, and he/she refuses to acknowledge the question. Kevin McE (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Multiple editors have objected to your repeated removal of mention of godparents, as well as your removal of the references which support this content. Adding additional content about Aunt Lydia seems perhaps reasonable, as long as the godparent content and references are not again deleted against consensus. DynaGirl (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:1990'sguy - I think you did a good job of summarizing the fact that we have consensus to keep the sentences as they are. User:Anupam seems to have offered User:Kevin McE the opportunity to propose a sentence addition to the article but they have ignored these overtures to move forward. Instead User:Kevin McE has resorted to edit warring discussion. What they don't understand is that both the PureWow and Billboard citations mention the statement that they keep on trying to remove - as others have noted, it's important because it provides some background information about Gilead, which people are trying to learn as they progress through the episodes. Both Billboard and PureWow thought it was important to mention and Wikipedia should reflect what mainstream sources think is important. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And I have pointed out to you, several times, that those on-line reviews discuss many other elements of the programme that are absent here, and yet you have offered no explanation why you should not set about incorporating each and every one of those observations into these summaries. And I have pointed out to you several times that both web reviews identify that Lydia was similarly asked to care for the child, but you have shown no willingness to re-institute the sentence that attests to that, which you deleted. Please explain this refusal. Kevin McE (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added brief sentence regarding Aunt Lydia per source cited. [2] Looks like objections were over your repeated removal of mention of godparents, as well as repeated deletion of ref, not content regarding Aunt Lydia.DynaGirl (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And yet you, while accusing other people of being involved in an edit war, repeatedly edit-warred to remove mention that such a request had been made of Lydia. This in spite of attention having been repeatedly drawn to that problem here. Explain those decisions. (accusation made in error) Kevin McE (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Kevin McE, you said I repeatedly edit-warred to remove mention that such a request had been made of Lydia. Check edit history. This is demonstrably false. DynaGirl (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You are right: I apologise. It is others who have repeatedly removed that, and I have confused your edits for theirs. It is still totally hypocritical for them to state that the request to Lydia was important and to thank you for making it, but the hypocrisy is theirs, not yours, and I am sorry for misdirecting my annoyance. Kevin McE (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition about June asking Aunt Lydia to be her daughter's godmother, User:DynaGirl. I agree that this was an important scene and appreciate you adding it. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

In that case, why did you repeatedly delete reference to it? Kevin McE (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Under which "consensus" has revert been made again? Damn, this more looks like a mutual agenda rather than transparent editing! Cliveplug (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Split to an episode list

This article is getting pretty large and with a new season being released in a few days, it may be a good idea to split off the episode tables into a List of The Handmaid's Tale episodes article. Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

While I agree the page is definitely getting long with the episodes, I would say we should evaluate this once the season ends. The episodes section is about 56kb, even without the season being complete, and per WP:SPLIT it does qualify for an consideration at splitting. If the series is renewed for a season 4 I would say we should look at splitting the series seriously. QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: I created a draft for the page, if anyone would like to edit it: Draft:List_of_The_Handmaid's_Tale_episodes. QueerFilmNerd^talk 23:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Since it's been renewed for a fourth season, I'm thinking it'll be a good idea to wait for season 3 to finish, and then split the episode list to a separate article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"near future"

The plot section begins "In the near future, fertility rates collapse ...". Have the writers stated that explicitly? It looks a lot more like an alternate present, perhaps diverging from about the time the original novel was published, 1986. Flashbacks show that fertility has been declining for decades, and the religious movements growing, perhaps as a result. So this is not "the future" of our world. (Somehow though technology is unaffected, exactly the same as our own.) And if saying that would be "original research", what is the source for stating that it is "in the near future" -- ie. a possible future of the real world? 123.208.236.123 (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Alexis Bledel not Main in Season 1

Alexis Bledel was officially billed as recurring in season 1, not a main actor. This is evidenced by the following article which says she was promoted to main cast in season 2: https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/handmaids-tale-season-2-alexis-bledel-1202475872/ This should also be changed on the cast page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2428:2820:ADAA:E9E0:DDDC:591 (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I double-checked episode 1 of the series, and she is credited among the main cast (in end credits, in the "starring" billing block), not as a guest star. Series credits override any external sources. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Significant spoilers in cast list

Is there an official policy on putting significant plot details, such as character deaths, into cast listings? A brief description of the character is fine, of course, but someone coming to the Wikipedia page for some relatively innocuous information about the show probably shouldn't expect there to be significant plot details on the show page's cast list. If the show has a "List of (Show Title) Characters" page, then by all means, that's a perfectly good place for a full bio of the character, but it adds a lot of density and potential displeasure into the main page for a show for minimal benefit. --Anonymous passerby, 15 February 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.173.70 (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)