Talk:The White Ribbon

A news item involving The White Ribbon was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 May 2009.

	This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Film: French / German / Italian This article is supported by the French cinema task force. This article is supported by the German cinema task force. This article is supported by the Italian cinema task force.

I'm curious . . . is it common to include such a lengthy cast list when most of the actors are unknown and their roles aren't identified? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to add lengthy cast lists, if I can. I agree this one is a little too long. I see no problem in trimming it down to cast members with defined roles. I'm sure several of the actors on the list will have articles on other Wikis too, esp. the German one. Lugnuts (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is generally discouraged to use a raw list of actors and characters like we are doing, but I'm not sure about the best solution. One alternative is if we could try to mention all notable characters somewhere in the plot, and add the actor in a parenthesis so that a cast section becomes redundant. Another is to turn the cast section into something between prose and a list, perhaps grouping by household, with like one entry for the pastor's family, one for Eva's family, and so on. What do you think?" Smetanahue (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much of an expert on cast lists. Actor names in the plot summary tend to bring in elements that are not about the story itself, so for that reason I prefer a cast list. Smetanahue's suggestion of a little organization by household or family sounds like a very nice touch. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the present wikipedia page it says something about a children's choir, however I can't remember any mention of that in the movie... Can someone clarify? Are there two versions of the movie? I would say, it's a movie about mysterious crimes in a northern German village, and as the plot progresses one learns that children may have something to do with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.153 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The choir is actually mentioned several times in the film. It is being rehearsed by the schoolteacher. Rudi demonstrates his prowess as a singer at one point, and the teacher apologises to the Baroness for his slow progress at rehearsals during the harvest festival.Sjwells53 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hebamme is not a name but the german name for the job "accoucheuse".--95.223.248.105 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A midwife, in other words. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The killing of the parakeet isn't a mystery - we more or less see Klara do it, don't we? We see her holding the scissors up to the bird, and then we see the bird dead with the scissors in it. It's never referred to as a mystery, and, unlike the other incidents, it's clear what she did and why.

I agree. It's pretty clear she did it, though not clear to me why. 71.236.173.98 (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The baron, who is the lord of the manor, does as he pleases and rides roughshod over his workers." says the plot summary. This sentence is not from something in the film. What we know of the baron is that he's rich, he employs many immigrant workers, and his wife is unhappy in their marriage. Of course he's unhappy when his son disappears and he overreacts in firing the twins' nanny. That doesn't exactly = "rides roughshod over his workers." He defends the integrity of the farmer who loses his wife. He underwrites a big holiday festival. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits Ring Cinema. The business about 'riding roughshod' was my translation from de/Wiki around the middle of December; I see that this has since been changed. I hope that you will do another edit to the plot synopsis. Mikeo1938 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary is remarkably mild in its criticism of the baron and does not do justice to his portrayal in the movie. Americans who admire wealth and money and the power they bring will find it, on the other hand, too critical of such a successful man in material terms. This Anglo-Saxon glorification of celebrity and status misses the point of the evil triumvirate in the village where "the local pastor, the doctor and the baron rule the roost over the area's women, children and peasant farmers." Ring Cinema, above, appears not to see the obscenity of being rich when the workers on the estate live in such economic hardship. There is also a disregard for the wellbeing of the laborers' safety and the provision of free beer hardly adequately repays for all their work. Firing workers is common in America today so audiences there will miss the parallel of giving work to itinerant Poles while German laborers do not know from one day to the next whether they have a job. The baron compounds his coldness by being unable or unwilling to show devotion even to his own children in contrast to an Italian banker.OrodesIII (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"When his son confesses to impure touching, the pastor has the boy’s hands tied to the bed frame." I would suggest that "impure touching" be put in quotes as nobody these days refers to masturbation thus. In fact the actual phrase used in the film was "impurely stimulating the sacred tissues". (Chris London 1955 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

'Impure touching' is not a quotation from the film. You are suggesting scare quotes, essentially, which would be confusing in this context. The effort as written is to catch the sense and style that the film employed. 'Impure touching' might feel archaic or formal, but the film is set a century ago and is not in English. I don't think it's unclear as a summary. Perhaps you will agree that in the final analysis it's not necessary to use a current term for the translation and abbreviation of a period phrase. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Chris London. The plot section is not a substitute for watching the actual movie, it should merely retell the story in a neutral way. The main use I can see is so that people who have seen the film but didn't keep up with all events, or have forgotten important parts, can get it clarified. Either a quote or a change back to "masturbation" would be a good idea.

While we're at it, by the way, I have to thank you Ring Cinema for all your recent contributions. We need more people who are willing to work on this article so it can reach a higher class on the

quality scale. One thing I'm unsure about however is the cast section, and I would be happy to hear your or somebody else's view on it. It is generally discouraged to use a raw list of actors and characters like we are doing, but I'm not sure about the best solution. One alternative is if we could try to mention all notable characters somewhere in the plot, and add the actor in a parenthesis so that a cast section becomes redundant. Another is to turn the cast section into something between prose and a list, perhaps grouping by household, with like one entry for the pastor's family, one for Eva's family, and so on. What do you think? Smetanahue (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I am pretty sure you're not thinking clearly on this point. Perhaps you could explain what the scare quotes are supposed to indicate to the reader. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurd to say that because I carefully chose the correct phrase that I'm not using a neutral term. I'm simply retelling what's in the movie, nothing more or less. Choosing a different term would put an interpretation that doesn't appear in the film. Don't be confused because I've done a thoughtful job. Thanks a lot for your concern. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Cinema has made some good points - my original suggestion of putting "impure touching" in quotes would perhaps be confusing. I think the solution would be to use the exact phrase used by the pastor - which was something along the lines of "improperly stimulating the sacred tissues" though I cannot be certain. Possibly somebody could supply the exact phrase?Chris London 1955 (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a good objection to the current phrase. As Chris originally noted (in quotes), the pastor says something about impurity, and he's definitely talking about touching. I think we're in pretty good shape as is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the phrase could be 'profane touching'...? Personally I prefer impure but maybe others disagree. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have the exact phrase used by the pastor, "impure touching" is as good as anything else - certainly better than "profane touching". My ideal would be the original phrase, in quotes, to show that it is a direct quote from the movie. But unless this comes to light, let's stay with what we've got. Chris London 1955 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't favor using a direct quotation/translation. It would give it undue weight. Why "profane"? Because it's the antonym of "sacred," which I believe was the point of the pastor's words. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris London 1955 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having now had the opportunity to see the film on DVD, it turns out that the pastor didn't use a simple phrase as I thought. "Impure touching" sums up the gist of what he forces Martin to confess to - can I just belately add my appreciation of Ring Cinema's efforts here? The White Ribbon is an important movie, warranting a high quality article. DVD contains some additional material including an interview with Haneke, who stresses that the film is not just about Germany but the dangers of preaching an absolute ideal to young people, which he feels is the root of any form of terrorism.

Actually, the child doesn't confess to masturbation but is confused into an admission of some sort of guilt by his father's domineering and circumlocution.Sjwells53 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One question I'm unclear on: does the film establish if the narrator finally marries Eva? It seems to remain silent but I might have missed it. Thanks anyone who has a firm idea. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's left open - hinted at, like other events in the movie Chris London 1955 (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The farmer's wife dies at the sawmill when rotten floorboards give way; her grieving husband later hangs himself." Does he? I don't recall seeing that he does hang himself? Lugnuts (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, his son finds him hung in a shed. Later a sequence with a coffin drawn on a wagon accompanied by people in black clothes is shown. It is however not explicitly said that he hung himself. ~ HannesP (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like everyone acts like it's suicide and that's how we know. Any dispute with that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im not really sure about that, but it seems to me that they carry the coffin out of the village. Maybe the cemetery is just little outside, but this scene seems to me, that they dont bury him at the official cemetery because hes a suicide. (sorry for language mistakes, Im German) --93.130.98.4 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid Lugnuts' undoing of my edit (reverting to my original edit), but I accidentally hit enter before I had filled in the edit summary field properly. What I wanted to write was that I think that the information that I added in my edit was relevant an not redundant, as Lugnuts' edit summary suggested. Please motivate further why you reverted my edit. ~ HannesP (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These succession boxes are generally deprecated and aren't used any more, esp. as their is a navigation box doing exactly the same thing. I'll try to find the discussions about this. Lugnuts (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That seems reasonable, considering that they contain the same information as the navboxes, only presented in a clumsier way. The reason that I didn't get you at first is that you didn't touch the other succession boxes, so I thought my edit in specific was redundant, rather than succession boxes in general :) ~ HannesP (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! Yes, if there aren't other navigation boxes for awards, I don't get rid of them, as often articles don't mention those awards elsewhere (this one being a fairly known film doesn't have that problem). Hopefully all the major award succession boxes will have navigation boxes one day. Lugnuts (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I'll go ahead and remove both the succession box that I added and the one for the European Film Award prize (as both have navigation boxes). Thanks for clarifying. ~ HannesP (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do however think that presenting a simple list of the awards that it has won isn't a bad idea (in the Awards section), alongside with the current text. HannesP (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a navbox for the Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film (phew). Please let me know if you think it's okay (I've never created a navbox before :)) ~ HannesP (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me - excellent work and thanks for doing that! Lugnuts (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear why this is a French or Italian film. Director is Austrian, producer, location and language are German. Is there simply some French / Italian money involved? Personally, I don't think that is enough to qualify, euros being fungible. A Spielberg directed film financed by a Russian company is just an American movie. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the involvement of France and Italy is mentioned in the production section. But you're right that it probably isn't significant enough to be in the infobox. I'll remove them and do some other clean-up while I'm at it. Smetanahue (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox film template says we should include all films that contributed to the production. I've found sources here that indicate France and Italy: here, here, and here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also think the studio field (which I had planned to add but forgot, will do it now) should include the French and Italian co-producers in this case? From what I've researched the production was led by an Austrian company, and 50% of the budget was paid by a German company, and most of the rest of the money came from German and Austrian culture funds. The French and Italian involvement was too minor to mentioned in the studio field, and I don't think the country field should reflect anything other than that. Special cases definitely exist, but the priority here should be consistency within the infobox. Smetanahue (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Contributed" is up for interpretation. We don't include the nationalities of all the actors, cinematographer, gaffer, production designer, screenwriter!, etc., all of whom contribute more than a few euros. 2. The infobox template does not reflect common sense. Every Fellini movie is Italian, every Bergman movie is Swedish, every Ray movie is Indian, every Spielberg movie is American; why the excessive deference paid to the source of the money? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contributed is production companies based on their country of origin. I'd take a look at the task forces: for example France states that "French cinema may include not only domestic films, but also films made by French filmmakers outside of the country, films produced or co-produced by French companies, and foreign films shooting within France.". We do not include these in the infobox, but these are for task-forces. If you feel this is incorrect, I'd suggest bringing it up with

WP:FILM. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't exactly agree with you and let me explain why. To make it as simple as possible, let me ask you this: if a Korean invested in a vineyard in Champagne, does that make the champagne Korean? Because that's the standard implied here. And I understand you're respecting the guidelines, which is great, but guidelines are not rules, they're just guides and we're free to use our judgment.

Then, there is a distinction that needs to be made between desert and recognition; if the goal is to cast the net widely and acknowledge all the countries that contributed, sure, the French standard you mention is even a little too narrow. But not every country that puts a euro into the budget deserves the same recognition. Personally, I'm comfortable with making distinctions. As I've mentioned, no one in their right mind would say that Fellini could ever make a Korean movie even if he shot it in Korea with a Korean production company; his films are Italian and it's obvious. If he goes to Korea he's shooting locations or something.

We're not making the article more useful or excellent by going through mental gymnastics to follow a bogus standard. The White Ribbon is every bit as Italian as schnitzel made from Italian noodles. It's not Italian and everyone knows it. So why would we say something else? The director is Austrian, the producer is too, it's shot in German and Germany and there is nothing Italian about it no matter where the money came from. If an Italian invests in Irish whiskey, does that make Jameson's Italian? Obviously no one believes that or would think it's better to think that way. Isn't that just falsification? Am I off base? I appreciate your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a note on the film projet's

talk page. Lugnuts (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

We aren't talking about Champagne so that's different. As I have shown in the links above it's very normal to list film's countries this way. Allmovie, Variety, and Screen International do this and it's a very standard procedure. I can't say the same for champagne as I'm not an expert, but for now we are just comparing apples and oranges. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as apples and oranges so perhaps you could cash that out. I see it as a fairly obvious argument by analogy with simple induction. However, if a Florida orange grower invested in Washington State apples, they would not instantly become Florida apples and I assume we are in agreement on that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the other publications use the same practice. In our context, that's probably definitive, even if it is a little nuts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does get a little over the top, but that's how film projects are organized by our standards and by major film sources. Some of them do get crazy, such as the Antichrist article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Template:Infobox film says: "Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies." In this case the main production companies were Austrian and German. The French and Italian companies were only minor co-producers. A complete country list would by the way have to include every member of the Council of Europe, since the film received money from Eurimages. Smetanahue (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Council of Europe is not a country so it would not be included. No other source suggests other countries either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Council of Europe is an organization run by a whole lot of countries. That the film received money from Eurimages, which is financed through the Council of Europe, is already sourced in the article so you don't need any additional source for that. What I mean is that we must not include every country which was involved somehow in the production, but make a fair selection of the most prominent. This is also what the infobox guidelines encourage.

To include Les Films Du Losange and Lucky Red (the French and Italian co-producers) in the infobox' studio field would just feel weird, which is a good indicator that they don't belong in the country field either. Smetanahue (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Feel weird" is not the indicator. I've provided more than enough citations to note the important countries involved. We can not pick and choose which countries to include based on gut feelings. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you consider Les Films Du Losange and Lucky Red as main production companies then? To me it's obvious that the main production companies were Wega Film (led the production) and X Filme (the main financier). Smetanahue (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't have a dollar value on what they contributed or more specifications, it's not up to us to decide what countries do not belong or what how little or largely they contributed. I've provided my sources and i'm sticking with them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wega Film's role of leading the production is sourced in the article's production section. One of X Filme's producers says in this interview that they financed more than half of the budget ("über die Hälfte des Budgets"): [1]. I'm the one who originally wrote most of the production section, and I've seen nothing that supports that the French and Italian companies were anything but minor contributors. Smetanahue (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they still contributed and other countries took notice. If you ignore this it looks like they did not do anything at all. Not including at them in the infobox would make the article contradict itself. These companies must have done something important enough to be mentioned by the sources above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is wrong, let's fix it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning whether they contributed at all, I definitely don't think their mention in the production section should be removed. But to fill the infobox with every country which contributed to a production, no matter how small the contribution was, is to go against the current guidelines, which explicitly say that only the countries of the main production companies should be included. None of the sources you have provided refers to the French or Italian companies as main production companies. Smetanahue (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is to vague to suggest that, what constitutes a main and a non-main one? . If their contribution was really that small, it wouldn't be included in the articles I listed. Here's another here. This is a normal procedure to list countries this way, and it's been done several times. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many good thoughts. The elevation of investment source to the sine qua non of film nationality is probably misguided although I completely appreciate the reasons for the arguments offered. (If an American company organized in Belize for tax reasons and invested in a film by George Lucas, would it really be correct to attribute the film to Belize cinema?) I think that "feels weird" is actually a good standard. That's how we detect unreasonable or specious reasoning on the first approximation. Then we examine why it feels weird, we bring in the smart stuff and cash it out. That's normal epistemology and we shouldn't brush it off easily. Thanks for all the thoughts, which are excellent. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem but bringing up this logic doesn't really talk about this article. If you are really concerned about this, I'd bring it up at infobox film talk page or on

WP:FILM. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, actually, you brushed off Smetanhue's point by saying "feels weird" was the wrong standard. If you agree with me that it's a good standard, then you either concede his point or give another answer. His point was that it shouldn't feel weird, so if we agree it feels weird and agree that's a good standard, then we should find a solution that doesn't feel weird. And I think we should indeed use our common sense to avoid falsification in the service of an inflexible rule that actually is just a guideline. The White Ribbon is not an Italian film, no matter what the infobox says. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm repeating myself, but sources I've mentioned above beg to differ. I'd rather go by guidelines than "feelings" about things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're rejecting the standard again? It can't be good in theory and bad in practice; it's the same standard. We pay attention to reasoning that smells fishy because that's how we detect bad reasoning. Your reasoning smells fishy but you ask us to both ignore the smell and agree that fishy smells are bad. I'm not sure I can do that. And again I thank you for your thoughts and patience. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What standard? You are really getting off topic and sounding like a troll. All I can do is provide you with more professional sources that list the countries involved. If we ignore them, it's incorrect. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not off topic. I'm patiently pointing out your suspect statements. We don't list every country involved in any small way, as has been pointed out before. The White Ribbon is not an Italian film. Calling it an Italian film doesn't make it so. The sources you list are apparently listing the countries of any company that invested any amount. That is one way to do it, but it's not our way or the right way. That's what we're discussing here. Obviously you don't have the patience for it at the moment. No problem. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you suggest it not being "our way" of doing it? The infobox suggests to list all companies involve as do other sources. You have only brought in opinions with no rules suggesting otherwise. Also, showing the links I brought in with their appropriate countries suggest it's quite normal and if anything, looking at those and than looking at what I've brought to the table "doesn't feel right". Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to add my opinion here. First of all, the "country" field in the infobox does not denote the "nationality" of the film, it just states the countries that are involved in the production. As far as I can tell four production companies were involved in the production of this film: X-Filme Creative Pool (German); Lucky Red (Italian); Les Films du Losange (France); WEGA-Film (Austria). This can be verified here and here. It is the norm on Wikipedia to list all the production companies, just as the sources provided have done, and I'm not aware of articles omitting companies because they were deemed peripheral. However, the 'country' field does carry the caveat that only the main production countries need to be listed. The question is how to define "main" in this context. I would say a good test for whether a company is a "main producer" is if the company name appears on the official poster. If one production company appears on the poster but another doesn't, then there is a strong argument for the view it isn't a main producer. In the absence of such a demonstration, all the countries should really be listed in accordance with

Ok, the poster actually does include Les Films du Losange and Lucky Red: [2] (large resolution). I guess I'll have to apologize. Smetanahue (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Betty, for your contribution. Seems like there is a misnomer in the infobox, since the implication is that "Countries" refers to the film's nationality. Perhaps it would be better practice to include each company's country paranthetically after their name in the production company field. Any objection to that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The country field isn't very well thought out because it's not clear what should go in there, and even if you look up the infobox rules to find out it's still misleading to readers. I've brought the issue up several times with the Wiki Film project but it's like banging your head against a brick wall. Personally I would reserve the country field just for the copyright country. As for listing the countries with the companies, it would make it clearer and more explicit, but I guess that's a format change so would need to be discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_film. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worse than the confusion about what goes there is the confusion about what it means. I suppose the drafters of the guide think it's just one of those things that you should know, but that's a pretty egocentric view. The readers don't know the guidelines, so it's hopeless. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countries does not go by nationality. But what does that mean? Where the film maker was from? Where it was filmed? We can only go by what we are sourced upon. This issue you are discussing seems bigger than just this film. If you are still concerned, I'd bring it up on WP:FILM or at the film infobox. Unless it's been brought up already. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and thanks again for your contribution. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a review of the "country" field at Template_talk:Infobox_film#The_.22Country.22_field. These disputes crop up all the time simply because the criteria for listing countries is unclear. It might be useful if everyone here contributes their opinion at the discussion and hopefully sorted out. The discussion on here is hardly unique and it's time for it to properly addressed. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: So are the kids responsible for all the crimes in the movie? What does this have to do with WWI?

This article suggests the meaning is pretty straightforward and has something to do with terrorism and fascism. But for me the film left a lot of loose threads and/or tries to tie them together in a very lazy way.

So the kids mutilated Karli? I could buy this if his dad, the doctor, wasn't a sick pedophile to begin with. How do we know he didn't do it? I remember the scene where Eva doesn't want to go into the forest with the teacher - does that mean she knew that would happen? And there is the girl who saw it in her dreams. But it all seems so ambiguous to me. We don't even know which or how many children are involved. How are we to draw a moral from that?

I actually had the impression that other children in the movie were sexually abused besides the doctor's daughter. Why is the steward's son disappointed that the baby is a boy? Why does the Pastor's daughter freak out and kill his bird? There is also a strange scene where one of the father's sons lifts the veil on his dead mother, then notices a shadowy figure in the corner. Someone says, "Karli?" and he goes over to the shadowy figure - and if you look closely - it looks like the figure is masturbating. The problem is, with all these adult monsters in the film, how do we know the kids are involved in these crimes?

So there are all these 'mysteries' which to me are never really resolved. That to me is a very lazy ending and impossible to draw moral from - other than there is *some* connection between child abuse, patriarchy, feudalism, Protestantism, terrorism, fascism and WW1. But - please - what is that connection?

Unless someone can clarify this, I would like to add more critical remarks to the critical response section. For example, Mike Ward wrote "The White Ribbon is a captivating minimalist horror for about 100 minutes, but by the time the movie tries force its way into the historical context of WWI, it feels like bad history textbook fan fiction." And Matt Brunson wrote, "Haneke's implicit suggestion that the actions of this village reflect the ideologies that would propel the country through two world wars has apparently struck many as brilliant but seems merely facile to me."

Great performances and cinematography, but the plot resolution and moral of the story were lost on me.71.236.173.98 (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that it's not really relevant exactly who did it. It's probably the kids, but the actual reason it happened was all the tension and dogmatic moralism and lack of social capital in Germany around the time, and those conditions are likely to result in terrorist movements no matter where and when they appear. But I completely agree that a well-sourced themes section and English-language reviews in the reception section would be very welcome. Go ahead and add whatever you've got. Smetanahue (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your points, but the connection between child molestation and WWI is still too vaguely defined for me. It seems like Haneke is saying if you sexually abuse children, they will become violent. That is a banal and gratuitous observation. I can see more clearly the connections between Protestant disciplinariasm and the aristocracy with WWI (i.e. Prussian militarism). But I don't really see what child molestation is supposed to represent. Also the link between Protestant asceticism and fascism/terrorism seems overdone. Wasn't Austro-Hungary a Catholic empire? How does this critique apply to Serbian nationalism? I think in the early 1900s, you would find a lot of Puritan, disciplinarian societies that had little to do with fascism/terrorism. Anyway, I added some quotes in the critical response section to balance it out a bit more and I would totally support a "Themes" or "Interpretations" section, since the movie is clearly more ambiguous than this article suggests.71.236.173.98 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Haneke doesn't provide an easy answer, there is no easy answer. That means that he's saying there is no easy answer. Perhaps you are saying that you don't understand the movie, but that doesn't give you a good position from which to judge it. You seem to associate "ambiguous" with "ineffective" and that is an error. "Too vaguely defined"? Do you want some kind of facile causality? Also, I don't see where the article suggests the movie is not ambiguous. In fact, it is clear that mysterious things happen and nothing definite is found out. I'm not sure if you want the film to be more obvious or more profound. I wouldn't endorse the view that it should be easy or simple. Cinema does not attain its highest expression in simple morals like a fairy tale. This film happens to announce itself as a children's story, and that is a rich irony rather than a promise of innocence, superficiality or naivete. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of laziness should be made before a mirror. The film is not a simple genre mystery or thriller from a preconceived mold but apparently something with deeper intents. The viewer does the thinking and finds the connections. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my analysis and attempts to solicit interpretations for this film prove that I myself am not being lazy. I am just challenging whether the "connections" and "deeper intents" hypothesized in this film actually sustain scrutiny. I think it is irresponsible to exploit the theme of child molestation without some point or message that is discernible to the audience. The film vaguely posits some causes or sociological background to WWI, and I am asking whether these sustain scrutiny. I'm not a historian, so it is possible that I'm missing something, in which case I'm eager to be enlightened. Unfortunately, I also read the German WP version and found little enlightenment there. So until someone corrects me, I feel compelled to say this Emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Also I can understand now if the film is meant to be ambiguous, but that is not the impression I originally got from the WP article. So I added some quotes to the critical reception section to better reflect this. 71.236.173.98 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your connection between "ambiguous" and "not effective" is an error. Ambiguity is not a criticism. Your real problem with the movie seems to be that there's not an easy answer provided, but there's not an easy answer and that's what the film says. Apparently you thought that since Haneke tells us briefly what the film is about, he would then provide a film that can be summarized in a couple sentences. He's up to something more sophisticated than that. If you expect a simple explanation for terrorism or WWI, you will only hear them from simple-minded people. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a simple way of expressing Haneke's point in a few sentences, he would have been well-advised to write an article. As it was, he made a film. The least we can expect of a film maker is that they have something to say that requires a film to say it. As in real life, lots of connections are left unexplored, some plot lines lead nowhere, and we don't really have a simple answer as to what happened and how it may be connected with post-war events. We gather is that the oppressive and claustrophobic life they lead has consequences, but we don't know what they are. It isn't as simple as the children being proto-brownshirts or even KPD members. The whole thing is told by a participant, the teacher, with no omniscient narrator. It isn't even just ambiguous, but multi-stranded. I'll be thinking about what I saw and heard in the film for years to come, which makes the couple of hours I invested in watching it a real bargain. The real problem though, is that the plot is extremely hard to summarise, especially as the connection between what is seen and what is happening is never simple, and actions are seldom related to intentions in a clear and linear way. Sjwells53 (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the U.S. DVD is rated R and I wondered if anyone else thought this was silly. Of course, the film deals with sexual abuse, but it's never very explicit about it. The violence is also relatively mild. If anyone else can find sources on this, might be interesting to look into (speaking of Puritanism). Also I'd be curious if there are any differences between the U.S. and European versions.71.236.173.98 (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The doctor having sex with his daughter and the midwife would be enough to get it an R rating.OrodesIII (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)OrodesIII[reply]

Is there a problem linking to an actor's Deutsch page when there's not an English page? Seems like a good way to expand the resources available to our readers, especially since pages can be translated on the spot. Lugnuts, what is your objection, please? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Gabriela Maria Schmeide as Emma, his wife
• Janina Fautz as Erna, their daughter

99.181.144.107 (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Maria-Victoria Dragus ... is another. 99.181.132.122 (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to bring a fresh perspective to the article, the new standards on the film infobox suggest we mention all countries involved in the production as I've provided a citation from the British Film Institute. It has been reverted with a user saying they don't think it's accurate, but I have the same countries from [[Variety (magazine)}Variety]] (source), Film Society Lincoln Center (source) and even the Austrian Film Comission (source). That's three sources from three different countries. I believe that's enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are misstating the guideline. It doesn't say what you want it to say. You are misreading the guideline. Please go and reread them. This film is by an Austrian director with a German cast, set in Germany and in the German language. It was an entry for best foreign language film from Austria. It's not a French film. Thanks for your thoughts, but you are seriously mistaken. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you are mistaken. It's for proper sources. "Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source. Some sources show the nationalities of the film's production companies, although that is only one thing to consider; user-edited resources like Allmovie and IMDb are not sufficient identification of the film's nationality." You have provided zero sources. Please show me where I'm mistaken and don't revert until the discussion is through. you have been warned. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're wrong in many ways. First of all, read the article you're editing. The subject of this film's nationality is covered. Secondly, you don't understand the guideline. Read them again. Thirdly, there is no consensus for your change so do not make any changes until this discussion is complete. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've read the article and it mentions all four production countries. There's an arguement in the release section, but it seems to ignore the other production countries. That's not really important however as I've there are several citations (as mentioned above) that mention all countries. Here are some more: the Cannes Film Festival website: here,

Screen Daily here also lists the four countries: here. Is that strong enough? I think I understand the guideline best as I could, and I've copy + pasted the part where it upholds my part of the arguement. Maybe I'm blind, but you could point out what I'm missing? And I don't need consensus when I feel like you are reverting valid and cited material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think you read the article. There was a dispute about whether the film was German or Austrian. No one claimed it was French. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia, you should assume good faith. You aren't. I read the article and they do mention france in the production countries in the production section. You have two people talking against you here, so I think you should step down. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production company does not determine nationality. The guidelines don't say that so it's clear you don't understand them. There are reliable sources discussing the question, Is this film Austrian or German? Your answer: French? That's not serious. So, this is the test for you. When you are obviously mistaken, do you admit your mistake or do you ignore the sources? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you've now reverted Andrzejbanas' edits 4 times in under 12 hours. It's been raised at the 3RR noticeboard. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless? Interesting approach, but obviously inserting incorrect information in the article is vandalism. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm uninvolved, this time.... Inserting incorrect information is vandalism only if the person knows it's incorrect (or doesn't care whether it's correct). That doesn't apply, here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is patently false to label the country of origin of this film as other than Germany or Austria. Production companies which may be multinational or incorporated in various countries participate in many films. The template label merely indicates "country" which would be equivalent to what country the film would be attributed to for award nominations. This is a German language film about German culture filmed in Germany. Many of the primary people responsible for the film are Austrian. Austrians are Germans. Either of those labels would be fine. Italy or France as "country" from which the film originates is absurd. Please see [3] etc. It does approach vandalism, but as to the vandalism accusation I do not agree, it is perhaps an honest difference of opinion. Obotlig (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. There is consensus that just needs wrapping up on template:infobox film to have production countries listed. I've provided six sources. It doesn't matter for awards fields. France and Italy may be more minor than the other two, but there's no doubt of their existance. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you are mistaken. There was not a consensus to the effect that you claim and the guidelines do not say that. Assuming you are being honest, you are unaware that sources that follow only production companies are merely one to consider. In this case it is clear that the sources consider whether it is Austrian or German. Obotlig's thoughts are quite commonplace and it takes a real act of will to pretend this film is anything other than Austrian or German. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are only making changes in the infobox now to properly phrase it. We are having it so cited notes from the BFI are too make it. Every citation I have shown (seven in total now) have called it a production of four countries. I'm sick of you guys claiming I don't know it, or don't read. You have shown me nothing other then award countries, but every article you've shown me has even mentioned it as a product of four countries. If you can't find anything else, you are just vandalizing. You don't own this article and you can't just jump to claims of it being a product of only two countries. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there's no consensus for a change. 2. I think you are confusing the countries of the production companies involved in the film with the nationality of the film. As it says in the article "the film is Austrian." Can we be more blunt with you? 3. Those of who know the film are not confused about its nationality. 4. I am sick of you trying to bully others with your inadequate understanding of this subject. 5. You are accusing me or Obotlig of vandalizing? That's rich. 6. Jump to claims? You have no idea what you're talking about. Check the edit history and you'll see this subject was discussed before your mistakes began. The sad thing is that this is an easy case and you still persist even when you have the facts in front of you. There are hard cases where you will try to impose your misunderstanding and include second rate nonsense in the articles. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, only you think it's not changed. The discussion is only re-phrasing its so everyone can understand currently. 2. No, here you go again: this book here states "Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures" states that "the nationality of a cinema is determined and transferred from the nationality of the production company of a studio". I can't make it clearer than that for you. 3. Being an "expert" doesn't allow you to be any more accurate about this article than anyone else. 4. I'm not bullying, I'm stating facts, you are showing one article that is based on awards, and when I point out books, articles, film websites, you ignore it saying "i'm confused". 5. It's vandalism if you edit articles removing cited information for no reason. Just because it was discussed before, doesn't mean we can't look at it fresh and realize we (or rather you) were wrong. The sad things is you can't even read a single link I give you. I appreciate you not to refer to me as second rate, I've provided citations, you've provided vaguely related articles and arguments that would make Taiwanese films Italian if Fellini directed them. Give me a break kid. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should just block all of you for

WP:3RR and let things settle. If this is not resolved (preferably, by removing the country information from the infobox, as suggested by Template:Infobox film/doc: If there is a conflict between nationalities, then the nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in.), I'll do that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Although there is apparently an edit war at Template:Infobox film/doc, as well, the provision in question seems to be stable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the argument is going nowhere and no one else seems interested in helping, I'm totally for just removing the country information in the lead and infobox. The countries are discussed in the article however, so I think the cats should remain. Any objections? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that will help, as the categories should be reflected by what's in the article. This whole thing is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your solution Lugnuts? Either side could use some backing now so it's not just me and Ring pulling our own hair out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone to plan B for now, by updating the intro based on the language of the film. Lugnuts (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this matter has been discussed before and the current lede reflects that consensus. By my reading of WP:consensus, changes require a new consensus. The infobox should reflect the content of the lead. So that's the procedural question. On the merits, this is supremely obtuse by A. The article itself quotes reliable sources that say, "The film is Austrian." Then it was submitted as a German film for the Oscar. On that basis, we don't have a question about what to put in the lede. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's been discussed before, but on a re-discussion no consensus has been made. I don't agree with your method which is based on your own idea that awards make it a country, and you don't agree with mine which I've shown to you is printed in books that production countries make films a certain item. Until the infobox changes or we come to an agreement, nothing should be in the lead or infobox. That old conversation is dead until we have a new solution or if you want to keep going on here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have that backward. The infobox is derivative of the article. That is obvious from the guidelines. Secondly, change requires consensus. And those are the procedural questions. On the substance, your position is obviously incorrect. It's obvious that "production company" does not define a film's country because of the text of this article, where they talk about the film's "essential functions." Hmmm, sounds like something a little more complex than your unfortunate misunderstanding. Of course, if you want to willfully ignore what has been written on the subject, you might want to force yourself to believe something that's untrue. That might be easier for you psychologically than to admit that you are mistaken. No one can force you to read the words or think clearly. If you want to put nonsense in Wikipedia, maybe you can accomplish that. Or, you can actually read what it says: there was a debate about this film's country: Austrian or German. It's documented. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying things are obvious then not explaining what anyone (if anything) is doing wrong. Change does not require consensus if no one can agree, then nothing gets placed. Currently, no one can agree. I'm not ignoring it and I've grown tired of your assumptions. Nonsense huh? How many good or featured articles have you contributed too? oh wait zero. There was a debate for which country deserved the award. Just because France or Italian productions didn't engage in the debate doesn't mean either one isn't notable either. And since you can't seem to see that, and I disagree with only mention half the countries involved than nothing should be because the infobox states that if there is no agreement, than nothing should be posted.Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear it up and so people do not have to read a batch of text, there are arguments based on the all the production companies involved with the film vs. the main production companies involved in award ceremonies. Since there is no end or concession involving which countries should be listed. As there is no set rules of what should be listed and we can come to no consensus we have to leave the countries out of the infobox for now. Until infobox rules guidelines are cleaned up or some settlement is made, no country should be listed until we can come to a consensus. Let's all relax and not get into pointless arguments that just re-iterate the same points for 7 paragraphs. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's inaccurate. There is an existing consensus of long standing and so making a change requires a consensus for the change. There is no consensus for the change. In fact, I don't think this editor can even claim a majority for his view. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me rules that support this? The infobox states if there is no agreement (there isn't) then there is controversy in the field. Since there is, we are leaving it clean for now. Just because the article was shown that way for a long time, doesn't make it permanent nor does it mean it won't be challenged. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed my edit was overturned because many websites state that the bird in the movie was impaled by a letter opener when I believe it is a pair of scissors. I am not sure if this is the correct way to go about it but I have taken screenshots of the film. Of course, I encourage you to have a look for yourself the section in question it starts at 1:36:00 and ends at 1:42:00. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.19.74 (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am following the screenplay as it is translated. Perhaps that isn't correct, but my thinking was that 'letter opener' is a functional description and the object is in the pastor's office, lending it credibility. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous - they are clearly scissors. The screenshots linked above shows they're scissors. Ring Cinema loves to argue endlessly and has been blocked for edit warring more than once. It's incredible how he goes on about this. The plot section is about what's in the film, not a summary of the screenplay. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we know, some letter openers look like scissors, especially from the period in question. Stop wasting time with your sad personal vendetta. Yes, I know, I have been right and you have been wrong. You don't make it better by being wrong again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You spend for more time arguing on WP than I could dream of, as many Talk pages, including this one, give evidence of. So what if some letter openers look like scissors. It is unbelievable how you go on for weeks arguing and edit warring with multiple editors over this. What is this absurd obsession you have with calling scissors a letter opener? Certainly doesn't do the readers any good. Your own link above calls the implement most like those in the film scissors. At least four editors say they're scissors. Screenshots show the same. Consensus is clearly against you. You are familiar with how consensus on WP works, right? The plot section is about the film, not the screenplay. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are wrong and I am right. This must be getting old for you. I would suggest you start to follow the sources like a good editor does. Since I put up my link, everyone has come to an understanding that the screenplay is correct because some letter openers look like scissors. I realize you have a personal problem because I called you out when you changed Carmine Coppola's page in a way that was inaccurate. I'm happy to mention it again because I never came across another editor who attempted to hide the truth. It sort of undermines your credibility. In any event, the sources on this are clear, so let's just stick with the sources. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"everyone has come to an understanding". No they haven't! Lugnuts (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we follow the reliable sources, so if you look at the screenplay, it says scissors, and, as you can see here, many letter openers look like scissors. So it's not really correct to call them scissors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As said here repeatedly, the plot section is about what's in the film, not the screenplay. You edit war and argue endlessly, yet your own link calls the implement most like those in the film scissors.

WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against you. You've now been reverted by at least five editors over this, and yet you come back and do it again. Are you looking to get blocked once again? - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Well I've taken this to the 3RR noticeboard. Lugnuts (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors who want to engage in OR constitute a consensus? That's not how it works, is it. Sorry GFilm to have to correct you again, but there is actually a source that says it's a letter opener. It's true that in the past you have intentionally tried to put incorrect information on Carmine Coppola's page, but you should give up this bad habit. Sorry, Lugnuts, you are only pointing out that you are engaging in OR. If you don't want to follow the sources, you should edit somewhere else. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're wrong. Happy edit-waring! Lugnuts (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are warring to exactly the same degree, so get out your mirror. If you happen to have any evidence to support your position, you have failed to mention it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The script translation....

                                                          [p.] 65

Rudolph looks at her. He doesn't think she's telling the truth.

58. RECTORY. THE PASTOR'S STUDY. INT/DAY Marie comes in. She's wearing a nightshirt, her hair is damp and sticks to her head. She looks sick and feverish. She closes the door quietly, then goes to her father's desk and opens a few drawers. She ends up finding the letter-opener. It has a hilt and looks like a small sword. She takes the letter-opener, goes to the birdcage, puts the letter-opener down beside it and grabs the tiny canary. As the bird chirps, she glances round at the door, as if to make sure that nobody is coming.

       NARRATOR: A few days after Marie's fainting-fit
       that frightened us all, and that was followed by
       her feverish and debilitated state...

She takes the bird into her left hand so that its little head is turned upwards, and picks up the letter-opener with her right hand... --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So your "source" is a user-submitted script site that's translated it from German. And you have the nerve to bang on about OR! Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have no source, I see. And apparently you still don't know what OR is. Yeah, I think you are acting like someone who is wrong and won't admit it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ring, Lugnuts doesn't need a source. WP:PLOT doesn't require citations as watching the film should be enough. Your source on this script is from a site that seems to allow user submitted material. This does not make it reliable and it should not be accepted. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything disputed can be sourced and this is no exception. If there's some thrill to using the wrong word because I happen to have a source and you have none at all, you can certainly pretend that it's correct. What else are you doing but wasting my time? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ring, your source is no good as it's form a site that just contains user submitted material. We have three people now who don't agree with you so there isn't consensus and your source has been proven to be not reliable. So currently it looks like no one has anything over the other and all we can look at reliably is watching the film itself. And from the viewers here, people don't seem to think it's what you think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The absurdity of Ring's position just increases. His "source" says She ends up finding the letter-opener. It has a hilt and looks like a small sword. But in the film and screenshots linked above it looks like a regular pair of scissors. He's supplied two links here, and they both actually contradict what he claims. We go with the film, not the screenplay. He's the one wasting everyone's time. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the guy who put false information in Carmine Coppola's page? Maybe this is still your habit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As false as saying the implement here is scissors? I haven't responded to your slander as anyone checking the Carmine Coppola page can see I improved and added to it, and it was all accurate. You make up false charges, edit war, claim things that aren't true, and generally act very immature as can also be seen on this page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly obvious that they're scissors. What on earth is the problem? Ironman1104 (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many letter openers look like scissors, particularly from the period. This is what I'm talking about. The screenplay translation says "letter opener". I guess we can go with the sources or we can do OR. So, yeah, let's use the wrong word on purpose. That's what makes WP great, right, guys? --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the that is what you are talking about, the scissors are plainly scissors and the letter openers are plainly letter openers. No letter openers looking like scissors. Often enough, the film deviates from the screenplay. Viewing the actual film is the source here -- or is that OR? Alandeus (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And ring, according to

WP:FILMPLOT, descriptive claims require citation. In the case of this film, can you show a source that makes your citation of that script reliable? I'm fine with it if it is notable, but it still just seems to be a site where anyone can upload anything. Do they do backchecking? do they just eyeball it? There's nothing that suggests that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a reasonable position. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the screenshot that the IP uploaded, but these are two I've just taken myself - One and Two. Very clearly a pair of scissors. Scissors can be letter openers too, but not all letteropeners are scissors. Just admit you're mistaken and move on. Lugnuts (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letter opener or scissors! Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. To me they looked like scissors. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Regardless of the shooting notes indicating the use of a letter opener, a pair of scissors was clearly used instead when it came to shooting the scene.OrodesIII (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's black-and-white implies it was released in color? So, by that logic, saying it's a film implies it was released as a book? Or saying it's in German implies it was also released in French? Sorry, that's the worst fallacy I have seen anyone attempt here in a long time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try to remain civil and not call other people's attempts at cleaning up text as "the worst fallacy of all time". Released in black and white doesn't make sense as one doesn't know yet in the article that the film was shot in color and later converted to black and white. If you really want to include your statement about the visual content on how the film was released, you'd have to discuss that it was shot in color first, but in my opinion that's too much information for the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without exaggeration and keeping it completely factual, I would say this is among the worst arguments I can recall from a competent editor, and I would point out that nothing you said does anything to improve it. That you make it your habit to make assertions on Wikipedia that are not true does not help matters. As to the case at hand, that the film was released in black and white has been in the article for a very long time. The reason for that is that it is true. Secondly, it is quite simply ridiculous to say that, when we say X is a Y, we imply that at an earlier time X was not a Y. I think that children understand that. So, while I understand that you don't enjoy the characterization, the way to show that you comprehend this very basic aspect of logic is to admit that you made a mistake and correct it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ring, I'm very patient with you, but most of the time you seem to say my opinions and edits. I don't like how "released in black and white" reads. I don't even know why it's important for the lead. I've heard "released in colour" as a promotional item for older films, but I'm not crazy about the phrasing. I have welcomed an attempt to re-phrase it here but you continue to just say that "this is among the worst arguments I can recall from a competent editor". Not to mention you state that "you make it your habit to make assertions on Wikipedia that are not true", which is interesting as I didn't try to call any rules into play in this conversation. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. But still don't like how it reads and neither does Lugnuts. If you continue to insult me in further conversation, I'm going ignore your posts as you are going against wikipedia rules on being Civil. Don't attack other editors, even if you think it helps your argument. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been civil but clear, addressing myself simply to your words, which, honestly, were very far off the mark. You made a serious logical mistake that is glaring and obvious. If you are correct about something, I am happy to recognize it, but, contrary to your statement above, you don't admit when you're wrong and perhaps you don't recognize it. Now, should the lead mention that the film is in black and white? Well, that's been in that section for a very long time, and I would expect you to recognize the reason yourself: black-and-white films are unusual (sort of the reverse case that applied to older films). --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the genre from the first sentence in the lead, per

That's just a guideline -- and an ancient one! As you can see, this draft covers everything beautifully. I understand that you might be a little jealous that you didn't think of it yourself, but please try to put your ad hominem problem aside for the sake of a better article. Thanks very much! --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are against the rules, then have them changed. For now, we follow

MOS:FILM Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"That's just a guideline -- and an ancient one!" - so a consensus then, which you often bleat about when defending your constant reverts. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the consensus here has rightly been to ignore the letter of a poor guideline and stick to the spirit. Your attempt to characterize my contributions is pretty crude and inaccurate. Maybe it would be better if you focused on improving the article as I've done. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe you should be focused on reading

WP:3RR. Again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

IF you can supply me with the discussion where we apparently ignore something rather than try to improve then sure, but I doubt there's ever been a consensus stating "it's old! let's not try to improve it, let's just ignore when ever it suits our fancy!". C'mon man. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument above is a pretty good example of impaired judgement. Let me remind you that you are willing to argue that, when we say "X is a Y", we imply "X was once not a Y." That is the form of your argument, it's ridiculous on its face, and Lugnuts backed you up. I am embarrassed for both of you, pretending that nonsense is meaningful. Since then you've been shopping for an objection, but they dont' stand up to scrutiny. I'd suggest you abandon your ad hominem attacks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't followup with any rules we are breaking (you haven't). We are following the rules of

MOS:FILM (you are not). Considering your last edit of removing a whopping 3 additions of cited material to Caché, I'm not afraid to just think you are trolling. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

How embarrassing for both of you! You'd actually prefer putting up an inferior draft than admit I came up with a good solution. Let's review the ridiculous howler one more time: you both want to claim that, when we say that the film was released in black-and-white, it implies that the film was also released in another format. I am pretty sure a 10-yr-old can tell that's nonsense. But not you two! My congrats. You must be so proud. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Please don't waste our time repeating complete nonsense form Andrzejbanas. You must be so proud! --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts asked for my views on the lead section. It is incorrect to list the full translation of the title as an alternate title because that title was not used in English language countries. However, the film did premiere under its German title, so it's a good idea to mention it if possible and make mention of the translation of that title there. The article has been in that form for a long time and the reasoning is good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, you are just removing information that is from reliable sources. Your logic fails on the rational of "it's been like that for a long time". Again, you're bordering on vadalism/ownership of an article to prove a point. I'll raise this with the Film Project for more input. Until then, please read

ownership. Again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

If the film wasn't released in the English-speaking world with the full translated title, it is incorrect as it is. I'd suggest something as per the guideline at

WP:NCF#Foreign-language films

like the following:

• The White Ribbon is a 2009
  drama film written and directed by Michael Haneke
  . Its original German title is Das weiße Band, Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte, which fully translates as "The White Ribbon, a German Children's Story".

--

talk) 09:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Rob - I've updated per your suggestion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the issue here is not about sourcing. Please do not engage in edit warring on this issue. If you are unaware that change requires consensus, please consult

WP:CON. It's clearly stated there. As I already pointed out, you are removing important information for no reason and ignoring the guideline on how to handle foreign titles. I'm sorry that this was already handled by other editors, but this is not an improvement to the article. Thanks for restraining yourself from making the article inferior! --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"Please do not engage in edit warring on this issue" Haha, please stop! The additional information has been sourced, three editors agree on the content, but you keep removing it. This is vandalism and again you are close to breaking WP:3RR. Please stop, as you know where this is headed. What rationale do you have to remove clearly sourced information from an article? In this case, none. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might be missing a point here, but I can't see the issue that Ring has. The wording is practically the same, it's just the layout that is different, but my/Lugnuts new version is in keeping with

talk) 08:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I can't see it either. The current wording meets the guidance as you've pointed out. That guidance was written per a

consensus, which Ring brings up quite a lot. IE, it meets an established consensus. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, I'll explain it again. It is incorrect to list the film with an English language title that was never used. Okay that is the first point. Let me underline and repeat the first point so that you don't miss it: it is incorrect to list the film with an English language title that was never used. So that is incorrect. First point. Second point: the consensus draft has moved the full original title to the second paragraph. And there are good reasons for that. The two titles are different in meaning, so it gives an opportunity to be clear about the differences and to show clearly what is the English translation of the original. Lastly, the film debuted under its German title, and the consensus draft states that. These are the reasons that this draft was accepted and has remained the consensus draft for many months. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - you make absolutely no sense. It does not list the English language title that was never used, merely states it as a translation as per

talk) 16:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Bingo. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob's version is consistent with the Betty Blue example at

Wikipedia:NCF#Examples, and I'm not seeing the distinction between this film and that one. I have to be honest I've never come across a film article that gives alternative titles in the second paragraph. We are supposed to identify the film in the first paragraph, and it seems that alternative titles and translations are an important part of that, and I don't see the point of the deviation. Betty Logan (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The point is to be clear. If the consensus edit here is better it should be emulated elsewhere. It's been up for more than a year and was never touched. There's nothing magical about the second sentence of the first paragraph or the first sentence of the second paragraph. Anyway, it's obvious that Andrz, Rob and Lugnuts are not interested in improving the article as much as expressing their annoyance with me because I correctly pointed out their gaffes; their pride is hurt and I don't blame them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and assuming any editors who take the time to discuss items are doing it for the benefit of the article. If the only reason you are reverting it is because of assumed intentions three people have against you...uhh..I don't know what to say. All three of us have edited articles in the past week outside these films by the director so we clearly have other things we are interested in improving. You are the only who seems to predominantly edit Haneke's films and Annie Hall mostly reverting edits. I want to assume good faith on all your edits ring, but this feels like a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed your good faith but you disabused me of it. It's obvious that you're only reverting me and you have no interest in improving the articles. Your thinking has become so distorted that you made the fundamental logical mistake of asserting (above) that if we say X is a Y, we imply that X is not a Y. I think we're all clear on what you're up to so let's not pretend. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah there Ring. I came here because of a

talk) 12:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

And Ring, stop attacking the other editors. You're distorting something Andrzej said in an earlier argument and presenting it in your own way here seemingly to discredit his integrity. That's not really on. Let's stick to the point or move on. --

talk) 14:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

My comments are factual and I have distorted nothing. Andrzejbanas said this: "released in black and white suggests it was released another way at one point (it wasn't)". Now, that is a whopper of fractured logic, compounded by Lugnuts reverting me when I corrected it. I am quite sure a child of ten would understand that makes no sense, and I'm sure you do, too. They have not walked it back an inch. Would I rely on an editor who doesn't realize that is a mistake? No. If an editor makes an error that big and won't admit it, would it be rational to believe that they won't admit to other mistakes? Yes. I would explain their multiple mistakes and misstatements on their antipathy toward me clouding their rationality. If there's evidence to contradict that supposition, I would take it into account. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point Andrzej was making though. There's no need to start picking him to pieces over and over and over again. --

talk) 16:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The purpose of this space is to exchange views honestly, including good reasoning. It is ill-advised to extend sympathy to editors who undermine that purpose as they have done. Either they made an absurd mistake and they don't know it, or they know it and won't admit it. Both are bad and there's nothing else to do but point that out. Neither Andrz nor Lugnuts have mentioned they were wrong, unclear, or mistaken; I note your misplaced sympathy for their utter nonsense. Editors make absurd arguments when they lack good ones. Again, this cloudy rationality is not some isolated accident; it is a pattern of resistance to ordinary editing that amounts to an attempt to bully other editors. I don't have to pretend it's not directed against me personally. I note that you haven't mentioned to them that they should correct themselves on that. If you think that Andrz's integrity is called into question by repeating his poor reasoning, perhaps you could explain why. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have come across something like this. Perhaps the reception section would benefit from German critical response? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last scene of the film shows a sunday mess. The comment states it to be the day after the german declaration of war on France. Ths was on monday 3 August 1914. So the mess is on 9 August 1914. --

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090527111516/http://www.nationalpost.com:80/arts/story.html?id=1624286 to http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/story.html?id=1624286

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—