Talk:Killers of the Flower Moon (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This page has some more information: Killers of the Flower Moon (film) It is going to be deleted. HAL333 21:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"Killers of the Flower Moon (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Killers of the Flower Moon (upcoming film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 5 § Killers of the Flower Moon (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Does this article still need more citations?

The article as it stands today currently have 32 3rd-party citations, most if not all of them being valid, objective and verifiable.

Does this article still need that big "More Citation Needed" banner at the top?

If it still does, then color me confused. Me though, I say it doesn't need it anymore.

--Ferdi Zebua (username: Lemi4) (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lemi4: That is not a "more citations needed" tag. It is a "more full citations needed" tag. There are several WP:BARELINKS in this article as well as citations missing the following parameters: titles, publication, author, and date. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Plot Summary

The current plot summary posted is not a good representation of the film. It completely misses important plot details (especially in the first and third acts), and minor details about certain scenes or plot developments are inaccurate. Unless someone wants to write a better plot summary, the current one should be deleted, NOT because of spoilers, but because it poorly represents the actual plot of the film. Edit: The important part of discussion should be focused on verifiability rather than accuracy for now, as currently any plot summary is unverifiable since the film has not been released. See further comments. Cleantext (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen the film, so I can't weigh in on its level of accuracy, but wouldn't removing the inaccuracies be better than removing the section entirely? Remember that there is no deadline.--MattMauler (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, you would have to remove or rewrite it all almost entirely. Almost all of it is, at best, misleading or poorly phrased. Its descriptions of Hale's and Ernest's motives, actions, and views of the Osage, as well as how the Osage view Hale early on, range from subjectively misleading (up to interpretation) to flat out wrong. It contains almost no actual plot points and completely omits arguably the most important one (Ernest is the one poisoning Mollie). Pretty much all the scenes described are also inaccurate. For example, the summary fails to note the film opens on an Osage ritual; it's not just "some Osage Indians" walking through the fields. The next sentence says they join together and celebrate, but this isn't really how it's depicted in the film. The description of the coda: "the film shifts to a radio-style news announcement" isn't quite accurate. Also, "The film returns to visualize some images of indigenous peoples performing various inherited rituals" is inaccurate. The film ends on a specific Osage ritual. Honestly, the way it is written feels like whoever wrote it hasn't actually seen the film. The plot summary contains almost none of the actual plot points in the film, and basically offers a poor description of Ernest and Hale's characters. Again, unless someone wishes to write a summary that is more representative of the film, it should be removed for now. Edit: This is largely not relevant to the core issue of verifiability for now. See other comments. Cleantext (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

My agreement is with MattMauler above and with Lanced Soul and Taking Out The Trash on the main page. If you were part of the production staff for this film then it might be useful for you to identify this information. At present your comments appear to be quibbles like your saying "peoples performing various inherited rituals" is wrong but that your stating its "a specific Osage ritual" is correct, which sounds like an easy edit to update if you think you are right. MattMauler's comment above is correct when he states that you can add your edits into the article when needed, rather than your section blanking against three editors who have tried to preserve the added plot section. If you are some part of the production staff for this film, then you should state this. The plot section is restored in agreement with MattMauler, Lanced Soul and Taking Out The Trash. Establish agreement on this discussion page prior to continuing do your section blacking against three editors. HenryRoan (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The "quibbles" are more about pointing out that the few scenes you do describe (the opening and the ending) are inaccurate. The larger problem is you haven't actually described any of the core plot of the film! Have you actually seen the film? Edit: See other comments Cleantext (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried improving the plot? Mike Allen 09:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This is difficult to do as there are not enough reliable sources to cite a fully accurate summary as the film is NOT currently publicly available. Even if the plot summary were accurate (which it's not), it is completely unsourced, which should be necessary for a film that is currently not available to the general public, as it's impossible for other users or editors to verify its accuracy.

See MOS:FILMPLOT for upcoming films.

As it stands, it is unsourced speculation/misinformation. Can someone explain why it shouldn't be removed? Cleantext (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I was not aware of the guideline concerning upcoming films specifically, and I just assumed it didn't need sources, but you're right, it's pretty clear. From MOS:FILMPLOT: Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary [...] Secondary sources must be used for all other cases, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and lost films, as these would not be considered generally available or verifiable. (emphasis mine)--MattMauler (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

But you've seen it, right? From the way you are writing, you know the story completely. Then rewrite the summary and stop blanking it. You literally registered to to edit this page and somehow know about all the guidelines. So you seem experienced here, so WP:FIXIT. Mike Allen 14:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Honest question here: What is the proper precedent or template for films currently not available to the general public?

MOS:FILMPLOT states that upcoming films require secondary sources. It is not really possible to write a full summary since those sources don't exist as the film hasn't had a wide public release yet.

Looking at examples from other pages of upcoming films, most have at most a basic premise outlined in place of a plot summary.

Is this not appropriate currently for this page? Isn't less information, but properly sourced, better than unverifiable misinformation? Cleantext (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You can't answer my questions? Mike Allen 15:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, which question? The attempt to improve the section was to use a basic premise from an official source. Even if someone has seen the film, a plot summary without sources would be inappropriate here as there is no way for anyone else to verify it. Cleantext (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

My mindset was WP:FIXIT initially, but that's because I was unaware of the specific policy on unreleased films, even those that have been viewed at festivals like Cannes. While I would hesitate to call the current plot summary "misinformation," vague though it may be, doesn't it seem like the accuracy is no longer the central issue and that we should remove the plot summary in order to adhere to the clear policy?--MattMauler (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The Critical Response section is stating a fairly broad viewing of the film when it states: "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, Killers of the Flower Moon holds an approval rating of 97% based on 66 reviews." HenryRoan (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

In hindsight, it seems it would have been better to focus this discussion on verifiability from the start. In the interest of clarification just so everyone is on the same page:

The current information in the plot summary on the page is unverifiable and is for a film that has not been released yet. MOS:FILMPLOT pretty clearly states that secondary sources are required for upcoming films. It also seems clear from WP:BURDEN unverifiable information should not be restored. Due to the film being unreleased to the general public, and a lack of secondary sources, a verifiable complete plot summary is likely currently impossible.

It seems appropriate to remove or replace the section with a premise from a reliable source for now. Can anyone who opposes this please state their reasoning for doing so? Cleantext (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Plot section

Are we absolutely sure we should keep the plot section? Spoilers aren't a problem but the whole section just seems so badly written and disorganized, and also contradicts several plot details I've heard from other people. If it's not deleted then it 100% should be rewritten, but the article definitely cannot be kept the way it is now. 85.186.62.79 (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced plot section and MOS:FILMPLOT

Chiming in as an uninvolved editor -- it looks like there was a reverted edit turning the unsourced plot summary into a more concise, sourced version. Starting a discussion thread here and pinging Douglas Firs and HenryRoan. --Yaksar (let's chat) 17:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the same thing that happened with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, where a plot summary was added after it premiered in Cannes but before it was widely released and it turned out to be fake. We should just remove it until it can be actually verified by watching the film itself in theaters, as it's the case with all other film plot summaries. —El Millo (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That's precisely my worry with this summary (beyond that the style guideline in question disallows the summary and that the summary in question is quite badly written). I can think of many compelling reasons to delete the summary, and none at all to retain it. Douglas Firs (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Upon further examination, I must also admit a certain amount of confusion towards HenryRoan's motivations for editing the page to include the summary. The summary is the user's first and by far most substantial edit (having joined Wikipedia on the same day as they posted the summary), the user's name is the same name as a major character in the film in question (and the real-life events upon which it was based), and, most bizarrely, in reverting my earlier deletion of the plot summary, the user said that Mike Allen had written it, when, in fact, it was first added to the page by HenryRoan. I don't understand how HenryRoan could have forgotten that they, themselves, had written the plot summary. Douglas Firs (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The plot summary was significantly modified and updated by Mike Allen. Sending notifies to the other editors involved MattMauler, Lanced Soul, Taking Out The Trash. The last talk page comment was that the film has already received over sixty (60) reviews in the general press for reading in major new sources like the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, etc. The Critical Response section is stating a fairly broad viewing of the film when it states: "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, Killers of the Flower Moon holds an approval rating of 97% based on 66 reviews." HenryRoan (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

First, the edit history only shows minor modifications of the plot summary by Mike Allen. That user deleted about a half-paragraph from your original summary, but I'm going to guess 80-90% of the text in question is identical to what you first posted in mid-July. We are absolutely talking about your contribution here, and I remain confused as to why you credited it in your edit summary to Mike Allen.

But, and more importantly, it doesn't matter whose plot summary it is or how many major news sources have reported on the plot of the film when MOS:FILMPLOT quite unambiguously states that upcoming films should not receive plot summaries unless one can be provided through the citation of secondary sources. At no point have you used secondary sources to explain your description of the movie in the plot summary; in other words, your contributions are in violation of that guideline. The reason why you haven't done so seems to me quite simple: I don't think you'd at all be able to write a plot summary, and I don't think it would be useful to have such a plot summary on the article, by piecing the film's events together from disparate reviews and press coverage. (It is telling to me that, when another editor asked you if you had seen this film before writing a plot summary for it, you did not answer). I must also stress that the summary is poorly written, for reasons that I think other users have done a good job of explaining in previous discussion on this topic. Why should this article retain a section that is both low-quality and in clear violation of a style guideline? Douglas Firs (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the circumstances (movie not yet widely released so there's no way to verify the plot, high profile movie, subject matter is highly sensitive), I say nix the entire plot summary section for now and restore the Premise section that existed before HenryRoan added the plot summary, adding any (minimal, broad stroke, concise) details as necessary sourced to secondary sources. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with TenTonParasol. Douglas Firs (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree as well, it should be removed until the film is widely released. —El Millo (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with above about removing it entirely. Also I don’t remember adding anything to the plot. I do remember removing POV type of wording. Mike Allen 21:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed per the clear policy. I expressed this in my last two comments in the above section ("Plot summary"), and I would have removed it back then, but at that the time it felt like there was a mini edit war, so I let it go.--MattMauler (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the plot summary and restored the premise. Policy is clear and there seems to be consensus already. —El Millo (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS does not make distinctions of premiere date, limited opening date, and general opening date for the writing of Plots. If reviewers are writing reviews with spoilers in the press for this film then they can be used in the plot section. Here is one of the over fifty reviews already published for this film: [1]. HenryRoan (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

No one said that it does, but the scattershot nature of what the reviews describe (and the requirement to cite every claim made in the plot section) would make the creation of a useful plot summary extremely difficult, and the formatting required atrocious. It comes out in a month and a half anyway - why not just wait until then? Douglas Firs (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Plot

Where’s the plot? 132.194.13.184 (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

J. Edgar Hoover

Isn't it weird for the brief "Premise" section to prominently mention "a 29-year-old J. Edgar Hoover" when Hoover is not a character in the film? At least he's not in the "Cast" section. 199.66.14.55 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Scorsese in plot section

@Douglas Firs: Scorsese being the one to divulge the ending information is not vital to make special reference to in the plot section. He isn't portraying himself, and the fact Scorsese is cameoing in his own film is already mentioned in the Cast section. Please restore to the previous version. Rusted AutoParts 23:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Douglas Firs: please also see WP:UNDUE. Rusted AutoParts 23:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is this a violation of WP:UNDUE, and why would it not be important to make reference to? (I've made it clear that Scorsese is not portraying himself in the language currently present on the page). The penultimate scene (the one in contention) emotionally turns and concludes on Scorsese's delivery of the information in question; it's what the entire scene is building towards, it's deeply moving, and it completes the journey of the film in a sense. You don't even need to take my word for it; several other journalistic outlets, including Vulture, The New Yorker, and The New York Times found his appearance notable enough to discuss the emotional weight of his appearance in print. I may be wrong, but it hardly seems undue or irrelevant to mention this detail when other journalistic and critical bodies (respected-enough ones at that) found it a highlight of the film. Douglas Firs (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We need the plot section to be baseline and concise. It's undue because we aren't also naming the actors alongside their characters in that section, so why are we focusing specifically on Scorsese, when he isn't appearing as himself? Despite it happening to be the director playing the role, the importance of the is the content itself, and not the person delivering it. As stated, it's already noted he's the one portraying the role in the cast section, and any commentary about his role can be noted in the Reception section, but in the Plot section it's inappropriate. Rusted AutoParts 00:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The focus is specifically on Scorsese because his delivery of the final lines of the film, and the fact that he specifically is delivering them, is what gives them their emotional power. The importance of the message is contained in part in who the messenger is - hence the note in the summary. Again, all this is something that the articles linked above all take time to note; the New Yorker article tells the reader that the cameo is much more important to the film than a usual directorial appearance in such a movie, and the Vulture article calls the appearance "incredibly moving" and states that it brings a close to the entire film. Why would one not want to describe the final moments of a film in a film plot summary? Douglas Firs (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We do? The issue is specifically honing in on the Scorsese end of it in the Plot section. The three sources aren't strong pieces to highlight the cameo when they're more specifically about the film itself. In addition, the NYT article is just a listicle about all the film's cameos. Should we name Lithgow and Fraser too since their appearances are being given special attention? The point remains that what's of prime importance about the sequence was delivering Mollie's life after. Whether that's done by Scorsese or not shouldn't be given special focus in this section. The role is that of a random radio producer delivering the segment. It just happens to have been played by Scorsese. That's it. I'm not against the article as a whole noting the fact Scorsese did this role and any commentary about this being included, but it to me is not appropriate to do in the Plot section. Noting one specific actor or filmmaker in a section where this doesn't occur anywhere else for anyone else in that section isn't a fair action. Rusted AutoParts 00:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair at all to say that the role "happens to have been played" by Scorsese - he's deliberately giving himself a platform as a writer/director/public figure to close the story he has just told in a manner with much broader resonance than the events of a detective story or period piece would in isolate; broader resonance that the above articles (at least the Vulture and New Yorker ones) all take pains to highlight. That's what separates his appearance from the work of any of the other actors in the film and that's why it is "fair" to note it - his presence imbues the final moments with meaning. I don't see how the "point remains" at all that the item of prime importance is the text that Scorsese reads in isolation. That's not how Bilge Ebiri or Richard Brody (pretty good authorities on the point to be certain) treat the sequence, and I genuinely think a summary would lose important descriptive detail for how the final moments impact a view if the item is not discussed. Douglas Firs (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's your opinion, but in baseline terms the core element about the scene needed for the plot section to concisely explain the scene is to just highlight what was said, not by who. If the scene was literally him, being himself, then it would be mentionable. "The film ends with director Martin Scorsese breaking the fourth wall to divulge what happened to Mollie and highlight the message of the film", if that was what happened we wouldn't be discussing this. But a radio producer, happened to be played by Scorsese, delivered those lines, so noting Scorsese in the way we are is not appropriate. And everything you mentioned about the sources is literally the commentary I mentioned that would fit better in a Reception category. Just relocate this info to a more appropriate location, like I said it's not being outright refused, but it does not fit in the plot section. Rusted AutoParts 00:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Rusted AutoParts; it is not appropriate to discuss interpretation of Scorsese's final speech in the Plot Summary. If it is to be discussed, that should be with cites to critics' reactions to the film in Reception. I think the Plot Summary is far too long and too detailed as it is; and it should not be telling readers/viewers how they are to react to the film. It should give more of an overview. The film has now been released, so maybe this section can be changed.Parkwells (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki MOS:Film says:..."describe the events on screen as simply as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." Thus interpretations of Scorsese's role or influence in final scene should not be in Plot Summary.Parkwells (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Devery Jacobs quote

Hi all, John315 and myself disagree with how to present this actress' views on the film in the "Critical response" section. This is their preferred version, and the one currently in the article:

Maureen Lee Lenky notes in Entertainment Weekly that First Nations actress "Devery Jacobs, who plays Elora Danan Postoak on Reservation Dogs" shared her "painful" reaction to the film: "Being Native, watching this movie was f---ing [sic] hellfire. ... Indig ppl exist beyond our grief, trauma & atrocities. Our pride for being Native, our languages, cultures, joy & love are way more interesting & humanizing than showing the horrors white men inflicted on us." Lenky also notes Jacobs believes Gladstone's performance was superb despite being non-optimally scripted: "Lily Gladstone ... carried Mollie w/ tremendous grace ... All the incredible Indigenous actors were the only redeeming factors of this film. [W]hile all of the performances were strong, ... each of the Osage characters felt painfully underwritten, while the white men were given way more courtesy and depth.'"

And here is my preferred style:

Devery Jacobs, a First Nation actress, criticized the film for its focus on the "grief, trauma and atrocities" of Indigenous people rather than humanizing them. Jacobs also called the Osage characters "painfully underwritten" compared to white characters.

Note, I'm open to my version being expanded with more details within this format. Please weigh in on how Jacobs' opinion should be presented, whether between these styles, one which heavily quotes, and the other which summarizes, or some other alternative. Thanks. Opencooper (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious: why should the opinion of someone who's not a critic be in the "critical reception" section? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

John315, please gain WP:CONSENSUS for your version instead of WP:EDIT-WARRING. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't claim to be edit-warring (nor am I saying anyone else is...), but:

Okay. As I said somewhere else, more or less: Justin Chang of the L.A. Times got to put 81 words within quotes (some in brackets, but still within quote marks), I think. To wit, "is both like and unlike anything its director has ever done" ... "The larger sphere in which [William Hale and Ernest Burkhart] and many others operate is, on one level, a familiar Scorsesean jumble of work and family, money and violence. And yet in its balance of Wild West expanses and intimate domestic spaces, and its focus on Indigenous men and women whose good fortune quickly turns ill, this world is also, for Scorsese, a fascinating new visual, dramatic and political frontier".

The version some people want me to accept of the Lenker EW article has these quotes from Devery Jacobs: ""grief, trauma and atrocities" ... "painfully underwritten"". That's six words. Six. And Chang got 81. That's well over ten times as many words quoted, so, vastly disproportional, and maybe vastly unfair?

My version quoted above, has 89 words (if the [sic] isn't counted): "painful" ... "Being Native, watching this movie was f---ing [sic] hellfire. ... Indig ppl exist beyond our grief, trauma & atrocities. Our pride for being Native, our languages, cultures, joy & love are way more interesting & humanizing than showing the horrors white men inflicted on us."... "Lily Gladstone ... carried Mollie w/ tremendous grace ... All the incredible Indigenous actors were the only redeeming factors of this film. [W]hile all of the performances were strong, ... each of the Osage characters felt painfully underwritten, while the white men were given way more courtesy and depth.'"

89 words isn't much off from Justin Chang's 81 words quoted. Thus, say, I'm willing to cut 8 words (or slightly more, if needed, for coherence) out of mine, so it's 81-ish words of quotes, like Chang's. What do you think? Thanks.

(Oh, and please note that I've already cut down on the quotes from Jacobs -- including the colorful "Give Lily her goddamn Oscar." --, since previously I had quoted more of her words.) John315 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, putting the Lenker article under a new heading, "Indigenous response", I am somewhat neutral on, since, 1. one could say that it gives the article the dignity of having its own heading, but 2. one could also say that it separates the article from other critical responses without an overriding reason for doing so. Thus, I am sort of neutral about it. John315 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

But as mentioned before, she is not a critic. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"Critical response" is ambiguous and can mean both: 1) the response of critics 2) responses that are critical. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point! John315 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

indig ppl?

w/ tremendous grace?

Censored profanities?

How and why is this edit more encyclopedic than the paraphrased version? Kire1975 (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The "censored profanity" is in the EW article. If Jacobs wants to say "Indig ppl", I'm not going to *censor* her abbreviation or "tremendous grace". Encyclopedic doesn't have to be boring. Or overly shortened. (I repeat, Justin Chang gets quoted for 81 words, so I don't know if it's bad for me to quote 78.) Thanks. John315 (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedic doesn't have to be boring

That's not a neutral WP:POV.

Someone is going to have to add an additional number of words to explain why "indig ppl" is being used instead of "indigenous people" if you keep it. Kire1975 (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Something to consider. Thanks. John315 (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

John315, you keep trying to equate the presentation of Jacobs' reception to that of Chang, but this is apples-to-oranges. The difference is that one is a professional critic, while the other reception is from an informal tweet from an actress that has not undergone peer review and whose tone and style is not suited to Wikipedia as-is. I still think her view is worthwhile to include, but it must be put into Wikipedia's encyclopedic voice rather than Tweetspeak shorthand. Opencooper (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Something to think about. -- How about this, say?

Maureen Lee Lenker notes in Entertainment Weekly that First Nations actress Devery Jacobs ("Elora Danan Postoak" on Reservation Dogs) shared her "painful" reaction to the film: "Being Native, watching this movie was f---ing [sic] hellfire. [Indigenous people] exist beyond our grief, trauma & atrocities. Our pride for being Native, our languages, cultures, joy & love are way more interesting & humanizing than showing the horrors white men inflicted on us."; Jacobs also believes Gladstone "carried Mollie [with] tremendous grace", and that "while all of the performances were strong[,] each of the Osage characters felt painfully underwritten, while the white men were given way more courtesy and depth.'"

This is shorter in overall length, and also avoids some contractions that Kire1975 found objectionable, so may seem more encyclopedic now. John315 (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with the way it is? Kire1975 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Plenty is wrong, including what I mentioned already, not to mention that the newer entry in the "Indigenous response" area has the lengthy Kate Nelson quote, "When it comes to Native representation, is Killers of the Flower Moon perfect? No. Is it progress? Yes. The film meaningfully moves the entertainment industry forward, making a strong statement that it's no longer acceptable to extract valuable assets from Indigenous communities – whether that be our stories or our natural resources – without our consent and input."

That latter quote is 56 words long. My entry, or your preferred version of it, has a whopping... 6 words of quotes, about 1/10 of the latter quote's 56-word length. That's a double standard, or close to it. (Not mentioning that my quote was the first one in the section, making it look odd that the second quote, from Nelson, is given a leniency that my version isn't.)

I see nothing wrong with my own current version, which has 76 words within quotes, less than Justin Chang's quote length. But if people want to differ, they can read everything I've written and continue debating further in a friendly fashion, as needed. Thanks. John315 (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The word count is all that's wrong with it? Kire1975 (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, what else do you claim to be wrong with my version? (And the current word count it has, is no problem, I think) I got rid of the "Indig ppl" and "w/ tremendous". It's now more encyclopedic. If you have any particular complaints, let me know. Otherwise, I may assume you're fine with all of it. Thanks. John315 (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, first, this is a Wikipage about Killers of the Flower Moon, not Reservation Dogs. Mentioning that is off-topic. Devery's statement is 13 tweets long, and covered in 5 lengthy paragraphs in the article. It's all pretty good. The twitterspeak abbreviations don't have anything to do with my personal preferences. If they are included, I just think they need more explanation and that any such explanation would be distracting from the topic as well.

2. I'm uncertain why the journalist who regurgitated the tweets in the tabloidy article about it gets first billing.

C. I also would have put the Kate Nelson quote first and cut it in half. The part about "is it perfect? no. etc." adds less value than the second part if you ask me. Kire1975 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning Reservation Dogs briefly, I think is o.k., since it helps show Jacobs' expertise with Native American-related media. As for the abbreviations, I removed them, largely because you wanted them removed. I don't know if "regurgitated" is the nicest thing to say here, especially since Lenker's article was informative. As for putting the Nelson quote first, that is still possible, if people want it. Thanks. John315 (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

John315 if you want more participants in order to form consensus, you could start a WP:RFC. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, for now, I'll just wait for people who were on the thread already to say something. Do you yourself have an opinion about my latest version, or not? 47.149.220.106 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, edited while logged out. (I thought I'd signed in for a year or such, not sure why logged out.) Sorry. John315 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

An IP that you edit regularly with, the last time being November 10, 2023. Also you made edits like this three different times (that prompted warnings on your IP talk page. Mike Allen 00:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I may have different computers, one in the kitchen, and one nearer the TV; the latter, I edited some without remembering to log in, I suppose, and just continued with it, mostly on different articles (largely about things I see on the TV, not in a movie theater) from the ones John315 does. (But, if I get an idea in the kitchen, should I drop what I'm doing and walk over to the TV-room computer just because of that, especially if I'm not trying to do anything nefarious?) Ironically, though, if, say, I edit every article from only one account in the future, and I had edited the same articles at some point from the other account, people could complain about *that*, e.g., they could say, "Oh, this person has edited the same article, but from two different accounts." So, it's not easy. Is there an optimal solution for that? Say, would it be better to keep two accounts, but make sure that I don't edit the same article from both accounts? But I do appreciate Mike Allen's notation. Certainly, in this "Killers" article, I've tried to avoid doing evil, e.g., if I had used the 47.-etc account for deceptive purposes, such as fake "sockpuppety" support for John315's positions, that would've been really bad. But I didn't do that. Thanks. John315 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2023

Hello, I write to request that this page edit the summary of leading actors: please edit the list of the three main actors so that Lily Gladstone is at the top, or second from the top, as she is the lead actress.

De Niro, as a supporting actor, should not receive billing above a lead.

Please change this:

Leonardo DiCaprio Robert De Niro Lily Gladstone

to this

Lily Gladstone Leonardo DiCaprio Robert De Niro

173.21.181.186 (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

We go by the billing block of the poster according to Wikipedia policy. The posters have DeNiro billed second over Gladstone.$chnauzer 17:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Oklahoma House Bill 1775

Why is this section here? Shouldn't it be moved to the page for the book of the same name? I propose moving it. Kire1975 (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to moving it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Kire1975 (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

bad redirect

"Molly Burkhart," the name of a real person, should definitely not redirect to a fictional film. Ideally I think she ought to have her own article like the other major players in the case; failing that, it should at least redirect to the real Osage murders article, not this one. 128.114.255.157 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree. Should we do the same with Acie Kirby and Byron Burkhart? They're both mentioned in the Osage Indian murders.

Do we need to do anything with the other real people redirects not mentioned in the murders article like David Shoun, James Shoun, W. S. Hamilton, and Peter Leaward? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I would think they should all redirect to the real article. Otherwise a mistaken impression that they aren't real figures could be created in glancing readers.

And if there are sources for it (which I would assume there are, since the movie got them from somewhere), maybe they should be added to that article? I don't have the case expertise to do that though. 128.114.255.157 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The Shoun's could probably be added to the Osage murders article (they are real brothers who were doctors in Osage County after all) if the sourcing is found. I think they get some mention in Grann's book.

Less sure about Hamilton and Leaward, they're just attorneys who represented parts of the case during their legal careers. I don't know enough about either to know where the best redirect location would be. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)