Talk:M. Night Shyamalan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Puducherry geographical qualifiers[edit]

I have noticed that there is regular editing and reverting of the qualifier for Puducherry, describing it as surrounded by one Indian state or another. Can we do away with the qualifier altogether and thereby solve this problem, meaning can we get rid of the qualifier "Surrounded by the state of __"? What are your thoughts? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newman paragraph[edit]

I have removed [ this paragraph} for a mixture of reasons. Of several issues, the copyright violation is unrecoverable.

  • "In 2008, Kim Newman, a reputed horror scholar for the Guardian,..." We do not have reliable sources billing Newman as a "reputed horror scholar".
  • "...noted..." This characterizes anything following it as a fact. A better choice would be "said".
  • The section from "...that it was a..." through "...say, Quentin Tarantino..." This is a near copypaste of the source cited, though the addition of "earnest" and an aside about critics were there, it is beyond saving. If you are going to directly quote a brief section, you must quote it accurately and clearly indicate it is a direct quote.
  • The same section has a few other problems. The source asks, "Can it be a kind of racism...?" The text turned this into a statement of fact by the author: " was a kind of racism..."
  • In the middle of the copyright violation, there was an aside to build the editor's point: "critics (majority of whom are white and male)". The source cited does not discuss Shymalan. Its inclusion here does not connect to Newman's statement either. Sources must directly discuss the topic of the article. For example, articles on the price of carrots, the nutritional value of Brussels sprouts or methane emissions from cattle farming do not belong in vegetarianism unless the material taken from the article directly discusses vegetarianism. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Racism section[edit]

I am wiping the entire "Racism" section for reasons similar to those above. Though the "Newman" section was added by an IP, some of the problems here are identical. Various drop-ins from youtube with statements are meant to support, overly-strong wording putting opinions from the sources (and other times the editor) as facts in Wikipedia's voice, etc.

Yes, there probably is material related to Shyamalan being mocked/judged/discriminated against based on race/ethnicity/etc. This is not how to do it.

In case I am interrupted before I finish, here are the sources I am removing, potentially to be used in a rewrite of the section:

[], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (At this point, I have not looked at all the links yet. From context, however, many of them seem to be of the "here's something I saw that is racist" variety. We can't really use those for anything. No matter how obvious an example may be, we cannot provide the interpretation, we need a source directly stating that "Film critic Chris Smith remark that Shyamalan is (whatever) was racist." - SummerPhDv2.0 21:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digging through the sources:
Vice - A lengthy opinion piece we can make good use of. The embeded youtube clips are of no value to us. The author, for instance, mentions jokes based on Shyamalan's name, says "I don't know who started it, but here's Quentin Tarantino casually dropping it in 2009". The clip does show Tarantino and the joke, but does not directly state it is racist in any way. The editor then uses the clip and bends it to claim "probably started by Quentin Tarantino". (This kind of thing is why I removed the section rather than try to clean it up.)
Tarantino's joke - A primary source, of no use here.
Robot Chicken sketch - This would be a primary source. Anything you want to say about it must come from (and cite) a reliable source. The clip itself is of no use to us.
BFI - A study of Shyamalan's fall from grace, it includes a section on possible racism. It should be useful here and may provide additional info for other parts of the article.
Kermode on After Earth - Again, a primary source. Not useful.
Slate on The Villiage - Again, a primary source. Not useful.
Slate on Signs - Again, a primary source. Not useful.
Vulture on After Earth - Again, a primary source. Not useful.
Vulture on Split - Again, a primary source. Not useful.
To me, we seem to have two useful sources here. I suspect a search with will find a good bit more. I'm breaking for dinner. If anyone wants to have a go at it, help yourselves. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Razzies[edit]

Razzie "awards" are covered in thousands of Wikipedia articles.

Who votes for them? Are the reviewers trained critics? Have the critics seen the films? I don't know. Feel free to find sources for all of that and edit Golden Raspberry Awards as appropriate.

For this article, however, the Razzies are included for the same simple reason the Oscars, Tonys, Grammies, BAFTAs, Nobels, Pulitzers, etc. are included: they are notable. Independent reliable sources regularly announce the "winners" of the Razzies. Sources discussing films, actors, directors, etc. regularly discuss Razzie awards. Yes, people will discuss a true trashing of a film by a critic (Ebert's take on North is a favorite), but discussions of just how bad a movie is will often discuss the Razzies. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The razie nominees and award winners are determined by members of the Golden Raspberry Foundation, who pay a fee ranging from $40 (for two people) to $500 (lifetime membership). There’s no requirement to have seen the movies first. So what you’ve got, in essence, is a group of unidentified voters with unknown qualifications taking shots at people they reflexively dislike, and — here is where the problem begins — being rewarded for it. Razzies are not critical analysis at all but awards decided by people with unknown qualification. No critic has ever voted for the razzies, so how can it be considered critical analysis. Nor do Razzies write articles discussing or analyzing movies.( Stillwater1103 (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing one thing, but acting on another. Your argument seems to be tha the Razzies are not "critical analysis" because there aren't necessarily professional "crtics" involved.
Your actions, however, have been to remove the material from the article entirely. You seem to have decided that the section title A) in this context is referring to professional critics B) cannot be changed and C) the material either goes in this section or nowhere at all.
Are you saying the material should not be in a section called "Critical analysis" or that the information shouldn't be in the article at all? - SummerPhDv2.0 02:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The razzies award are already covered under List of awards and nominations received by M. Night Shyamalan ( so it seems like an unnecessary duplication of that. Also critical analysis means analysis by people who at least have some basic degree in filmaking/ film history(if not a PhD) and not awards(Razzies) decided by people with unknown qualifications taking shots at people they reflexively dislike. IMHO, this detailed book named Critical Approaches to the Films of M. Night Shyamalan edited by Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock (a professor at Central Michigan University with a PhD) is something that could be considered critical analysis .( Stillwater1103 (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear. You seem to still be making both arguments -- that it shouldn't be in "Critical analysis" and that it shouldn't be in the article at all.
A PhD is an unreasonable requirement for film analysis for two reasons. First, that is not where most critics are coming from. Second, the author is not the source.
Yes, ivory tower discussion of popuChrlar culture products is certainly relevant. Tropes, stock characters, subtext, etc. are all potentially relevant. That said, the average movie-goer wants to know "Is it 'good' or does it 'suck'." Reliable sources seem to recognize this, with the previously mentioned Roger Ebert (with, IIRC, a bachelor's degree in journalism). Would a Wikipedia article turn to Ebert or whomever writes for Rolling Stone these days? You bet. Because:
The author is not the source. With the exception of a recognized expert writing in their field (e.g. Ebert's blog), we aren't particularly interested in who the author is. WP:RS is clear that an anonymous Shmoe writing for the New York Times essentially becomes the New York Times (in that we are looking at NYT's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, to Shmoe's credentials). Thus, the current section cites Rolling Stone, The Independent, Slate, Entertainment Weekly, etc.
In the present case, Entertainment Weekly would be the source for Shyamalan's Razzie history, not Christopher Rosen (BA in communications, executive editor at EW, former editor-in-chief at TV Guide). That the Razzies are voted on by PhDs or random wannabes is completely irrelevant. If Entertainment Weekly saw Shyamalan's Razzies as relevant, they are relevant.
However, the source you apparently haven't read, does not discuss Shymalan's 5 film stretch with the Razzies. It merely mentions one of the "wins".
Your argument here should be that we do not have a reliable source discussing his long stretch of Razzie wins (at the moment) and you should remove it for that. Should someone do a bit of digging, they will however find reliable sources discussing that 5 film run with the Razzies, likely as part of a discussion of Shyamalan's run of notably unpopular films. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1)The razzies award are already covered under List of awards and nominations received by M. Night Shyamalan ( so it seems like an unnecessary duplication of that.

2)"Shyamalan has also won numerous Golden Raspberry Awards for Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, and Worst Film in 2006 and 2010, while being nominated in 2008 for The Happening and 2013 for After Earth." This is not cited in the article at all. Its just mentions his nomination for Razzie Redeemer award. Please find a reliable source to support that quoted line.Stillwater1103 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New "Criticism" section[edit]

The recently added section is a complete rewrite of Stillwater1103's section titled "Racism". While there is material in the sources added discussing racism, there was significant other material which one of the two sources identified as being part of the criticism of Shyamalan's career. I've [added some discussion to Stillwater's talk page, explaining a few problems I had identified and invited additional work on the section.

That said, the material in "Criticism" is rather oddly placed and probably should be merged into the existing "Critical analysis" (discussing a director and their work frequently blends and, to an extent, confuses the two). I'm asking for Stillwater's take on the new material (and others') before combining the two. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity and/or place of birth in the lead[edit]

Hey, there used to be a section on this in the Talk page, not sure if it was archived or where it went. But just heads up, per MOS:Ethnicity specifications for biography leads, place of birth, previous nationalities, and/or ethnicity are not included in the lead unless directly relevant to notability. Specifically, the nationality rules for bio leads are: "In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." This subject's notability occurred in the United States as a U.S. citizen only, as India does not permit dual citizenship. Furthermore, his primary/foremost notability is as a producer/director, not due to his Indian heritage or birthplace. Therefore he is most aptly described as "American", not "Indian-American". We also discuss his heritage just a few lines down from the first sentence, so it's not like we are not acknowledging it up-front. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not India permits dual citizenship is irrelevant as to whether someone can be described as "Indian American, as that term is frequently used to describe an American with ancestry from India. However, I'd agree with you that it doesn't belong in the short description; it's sufficient to mention Shyamalan's birthplace as the article already does. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]