Talk:Jonathan Glazer

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Currently the The Zone of Interest section of this article takes up 7,261 bytes out the total 33,918 bytes of the whole article making it the largest section of the whole article. Refer to Special:Diff/1214424815 for current size of the section at time of writing this RfC.
Should the whole section, inclusive of any subsections and quotes, be trimmed so that it is no larger than half its current size? TarnishedPath^talk 02:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

I vote yes. I keep re reading it. 8barzmusic (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I think that the material should be reduced by at least half. Further any quotation should be no more two sentences and that there should be no material on reactions. As it stands at present this section is
  WP:DUE but there rest is in its current form is uncalled for given its proportion to the rest of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes I would reduce it even further. It could be expanded later when we have better perspective about how it fits into the biography, but right now it's too
  WP:RECENT. Frankly, the film itself should be a larger part of his biography than a speech at the award show since the film is a bigger reason for his notability. Nemov (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I actually agree here too. I'm sure some will argue that the acceptance speech is a big reason due to what it has stirred up. But the film got him the award in the first place, it is a bigger reason for his notability. I'm in favour of a trim. Also, I want to point out that this I am hearing about the effects of the subject's speech in all areas of my life. I can't actually get away from it. So, seeing that it is becoming more talked about, I can see the other side to the argument being fair as well. I am going to vote neutral now. I apologize if this doesn't help any. I'm going to read all the WP:RECENT and the others that have been mentioned to really familiarise myself. 8barzmusic (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose artificial trimming. The existing section correctly reflects the level of controversy that speech generated, and if anything, there is more that can be added. But it is conceivable that as the controversy grows, it may merit its own article with only a short summary within this biographical article. Up the Walls (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Sock strike[reply]

  What you argue for is coatracking. TarnishedPath^talk 00:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes and possibly merge into the movie's main article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes -- the contents in the current version of the article is sufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A great improvement. I think it could be improved slightly more if the amount hat was quoted was reduced and the space given to the movie was increased slightly. TarnishedPath^talk 06:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - Per discussion below, I am not convinced the question asked here is quite the right one, but the discussion has led to a more concise version per StarkReport [6]. My yes is to agree that this is an appropriate level of concision for the article. Good luck to the closer on summing that up. 😁 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes a bit late to the discussion but yet for all the reasons stated. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Emmentalist, @Blotski, @8barzmusic, @StarkReport, @K.e.coffman, @Up the Walls and @Sirfurboy who have been involved in this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am not sure this is the question we need answering, sorry. I haven't really commented on this yet, but my problem with the section is not its length per se, but that it is straying off topic and looks like some current affairs and politics sandwiched into the page. Currently we have 65 words telling us that the film was being produced and won two awards, and then (without actually telling us it won the Academy Award) there are 403 words about one part of his Academy Awards acceptance speech. That is political comment sandwiched into the article. Yes, he made the political comment, and it deserves a sentence, maybe two. But the problem with this RfC question is it does not resolve this undue coatracking, and would create consensus for an arbitrary rule that could, in any case, be gamed. If we said this section had to be cut below 250 words, someone could just coatrack this information in a political views section instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:AN/I

  if someone wanted to make a dispute out of it.

  You are correct that the problem here is

  WP:UNDUE coatracking, however I'd expect that would form part of this discussion. If this proposal was carried then that coatracking would be reduced by at least half. Note: I don't propose a minimum length for the section. The proposal only specifies a maximum. It could very well be the case that consensus develops for a maximum of two sentences, inclusive of any quotes, on the movie. TarnishedPath^talk 09:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment - I agree that that the content is going the way of
  WP:Balance
  . But, now I think the one way to proceed forward is to remove the three paragraphs outlining reactions, and just revise the introductory line of the section to:

Looking forward to what others think. StarkReport (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that perhaps any quote be limited to one or two sentences and that commentary about reactions is not required. TarnishedPath^talk 10:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TarnishedPath, and on that basis, this looks like a good move forward. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath, By quotes, if you mean the reactions, hmm I think how about in the introductory line, we could rework it something like "At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine that was praised by some "for speaking out against the atrocities in Gaza." and criticised by some who perceived it to be Glazer "refuting his Jewishness." He stated:" StarkReport (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too many words. How about:

"At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine"

If you wanted to suggest adding high quality reference/s that detailed that they were praised and criticised I wouldn't see any issue with that. Leave it to the reader to read further if they want. TarnishedPath^talk 11:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed line above seems perfectly fine to me. Actually, I'm in favor of it. StarkReport (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Nemov rightly points out above that there should be more material dedicated to the movie itself. In my view it should be one sentence stating: "At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine", two sentences of quote at most and the rest of the material on the movie itself. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Having read all the excellent contributions here, I must admit it feels like the new present wording feels like a misconception of the acceptance speech event. The speech is treated simply as a movie award acceptance speech where the movie is the main subject. There is a long quote and no reference to the international response. In fact, the speech was a highly political foray into the world's most explosive subject at present, one which garnered world attention because of its political intent. It was commented on worldwide as a highly political statement and event, and that was Glazer's intention. In my view, there should be a separate section entitled something like; "Statement on war in Gaza". The quote should be included, along with a short sentence which refers to the international response, and so should around four exemplar responses (supportive, critical on basis of equivalence implied, critical on basis of (ambiguous) refutation of jewishness, argument that he did not intend such a refutation). In the end, the article is not about the movie work of Glazer, but about Glazer himself. It is highly relevant to the article that Glazer has become, for a long moment, the focus of international political attention which goes well beyond his artistic output. I'll try a formulation here (not at the article) later for discussion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the end, the article is not about the movie work of Glazer, but about Glazer himself. One could also say in the end the article is not about reactions to a speech by Glazer, but about Glazer himself. However, both things are connected to Glazer, so we need to consider

  WP:DUE amongst other considerations. The first sentence of the lede of this article states that Glazer "is an English film director and screenwriter". So obviously this gives us some indication about what is of more importance to talk about in the article, his speeches or his works as a director and screenwriter. We can talk about both but we need to apply appropriate WEIGHT and DUE. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thanks @TarnishedPath Let me give a slightly nuanced parallel. If Robbie Williams turned up in Boots the chemist with a cricket bat and assaulted random members of the public while singing "Angels", the reportage would not be primarily about the song "Angels" and nor would that section of his Wikipedia article. Instead, there would surely be a section in his article entitled something like; "That time Robbie Williams went off his head in Boots". Here, with Glazer, the incident is not primarily an artistic one but a political one. This is both how Glazer intended it and how it was received across the world. Most people in the world who have heard of Glazer's remarks will certainly never heard of his artistic work. WP:Weight and WP:Due are surely both in order with a section which works in this way? Emmentalist (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Refer to

  WP:NOTNEWS. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think the issue here is around

  Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability.

  We don't guess what will be notable one day, we wait for the notability to be established, and then cover the matter.

  So, when is notability established? Simply this: when secondary sources cover it. When someone writes an analysis that says something about the deep legacy of this speech, how it changed the world, influenced a president, changed public perception etc. in a secondary source, then an encylopaedia writer can collate that secondary sourced information and other secondary sourced information into this tertiary sourced encyclopaedia.

  We are writing the tertiary source, not a secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Secondary sources does not mean a profound historical analysis, @Sirfurboy. It means it's covered widely in non-deprecated sources; far more widely in this case, I should say, than any of Glazer's movies have. We can use common sense to know that based on present knowledge of the vast coverage it received, the speech will continue to be Glazer's most widely covered act. I agree, by the way, that the actual text of the speech has not been covered anything like as much as reportage of the event. That would be an argument for omitting said text. Anyway, it certainly isn't recentism. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't recognise that definition of secondary sources. Deprecated sources are not reliable sources, but if they are not deprecated they may or may not be reliable, and that is a completely different consideration as to whether they are

  WP:PRIMARYNEWS for instance. In some cases they may be secondary though. Here we have what Donnelly & Norton (2021) call "discursive primary sources":

  Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.^[1]

  ^: 69

  They have a lot to say about primary sources and sources in general, but one big takeaway from that book, btw, (and it might seem obvious) is that historians will prefer the primary sources, because they are writing histories. We are not writing histories (even if you grant a biography as a type of history). We are writing tertiary encylopaedic articles that should be devoid of original research. - Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with much of the commentary here, including the point by User:Sirfurboy that WP's role is to rely on secondary sources about the controversy. I believe I found one such reliable source, so I will (boldly?) add a sentence after the Glazer quotation.

  As I read the RfC survey, people favored cutting the WP coverage. But I do think it is odd to quote the acceptance speech without mentioning the controversy, because otherwise why put in that quote?

  If you agree that at least one sentence if plausible, let me suggest that you edit rather than revert my effort. I wrote: "Glazer's statement proved controversial and sparked strong reactions in Jewish circles." using a JTA source. ProfGray (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ProfGray, that's not consensus as I read it. Consensus as I read it is that controversy/reactions not be covered at all. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The question was whether the text should be trimmed down. Five "yes" to trim it down. Did any !votes say that the controversy should not be covered at all? Maybe I missed that? The comments section concludes with a discussion about the need to have secondary sources. So I found a reliable source about the controversy, in general, and I wrote 11 words that does not get into the weeds at all. ProfGray (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly refer to my !vote which explicitly stated that reactions should not be covered. Secondly refer to developing consensus about wording and edits over time which remove reactions (which had provided secondary sources) to a trimmed version. Your edit moved away from the consensus trimmed version. TarnishedPath^talk 02:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:10YT for this article. StarkReport (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Hi. Isn't the proposed sentence balanced? It says: "Glazer's statement proved controversial and sparked strong reactions in Jewish circles." This incorporates strong reactions that were both positive and negative. If need be, we can add citations that further prove your point, which is absolutely correct, that there was support as well as opposition from fellow Jews -- though the article I cited itself aims for balance and does document progressive Jewish support for Glazer.

  I do agree that the consensus was to avoid a cumbersome section but I think one sentence, under a dozen words, is not cumbersome. Thanks for your consideration. ProfGray (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's already references in the section which contain information about what the reactions were. If readers are interested they can read the references and find out for themselves. This has already been covered in the discussion above. Consensus has formed for the trimmed version. TarnishedPath^talk 01:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed with this last response by @ProfGray 2605:8D80:680:DB57:65EA:6DBE:98F9:1B28 (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]