Talk:Citizen Kane/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Citizen Kane (score)

I've been sitting on a nice wikitable of the entire Herrmann score that I was intending to fork into another article. Currently I don't have the time. So I'd be willing to let someone else set up a separate article on the music for this film. -- kosboot (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct?

1. 6 Filmmaking innovations

* 6.1 Cinematography
* 6.2 Storytelling techniques
o 6.2.1 Special effects
o 6.2.2 Makeup
o 6.2.3 Soundtrack
* 6.3 Music

--212.247.27.17 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

rosebud in moby dick

Rosebud was the name of a wooden french ship in chapter 91 of moby dick that had 2 long-dead whales strapped to the sides. The pequod crew made fun of the french for being stupid whalers and remarked on the irony and humor of the ship's name, since they could smell it even before they saw it. "A wooden rose-bud, eh?" he cried with his hand to his nose, "that will do very well; but how like all creation it smells!" Orson did a stage production of mody dick in the 1950's. it would be interesting to see his treatment of that passage.Ywaz (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that discuss this? Doniago (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot

It's been a few months since I edited the plot. I continue to argue that the real framing device of the film is not just Rosebud, but the sign that says "No Trespassing." You can see from earlier versions of the script, before Rosebud was conceived, that this would be the device - and it's still in the film, particularly the final shot (which is not the sled, but that "No Trespassing" sign. So I ask you all to consider this addition to the plot. -- kosboot (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that discuss this? Doniago (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have it in front of me, but I believe the Kael book makes an issue of it. -- kosboot (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

To-do for GAN

What needs to be done to this article to prepare it for WP:GAN? It looks fairly stable, citations are abundant, but could be cleaned up a bit. Maybe a copyedit scrubdown. Any other major issues? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hearst Castle showing

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-citizen-kane-20120123,0,746138.story

Might be appropriate to mention after it happens.

67.122.210.96 (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Consistent possessive: Welles's

As a resource and reference, this is a link to the discussion about the need for a consistent possessive on the talk page of the article on Orson Welles. This article, and many others, uses the possessive "Welles's" consistently. If consensus changes on that there will be a good deal of editing ahead; for now, I'm reverting a good-faith edit to the lede of this article made today.—WFinch (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Overly detailed" section on distribution rights

In March, the Distribution rights section of this article was tagged as being "overly detailed" and having interest to only a select audience. I'd like to disagree, since the information is succinct and well sourced, and most particularly because the distribution of Citizen Kane long after its initial theatrical release brought about its rediscovery and resurgence. Unless someone takes issue with that, I'd like to remove that tag.—WFinch (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Trivialist added it, but I do not think that the section is long at all. I'm fine with removing the tag. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've taken it off; I guess it's not crazy detailed. Trivialist (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Factual inconsistencies

Comparing the Italian and English page on Citizen Kane, one contradicts the other:

- the Italian page states that the film was actually profitable (using data from various sources: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=citizenkane.htm and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/business), while the English page states that "Citizen Kane failed to recoup its costs at the box office". It may be that some of the data used to support the statement is actually inflation-adjusted (and the other data isn't), but that seems unlikely, because if that were the case, not only the sales failed to cover the production costs, but it would have actually been a tremendous disaster.

- the Italian page states that Sartre actually held the film in disdain, calling it "baroque and excessive" (citing a text by Merenghetti, which is unavailable online), while the English page states that Sartre, among others, helped restore the film's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.26.76.44 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Errors in the music section

The music section of this article is incorrect in identifying the song that takes place during "the fight between Susan and Kane in the picnic tent" as "It Can't Be Love." The name of the song is "In a Mizz." It was composed by Haven Johnson and Charlie Barnet. The lyrics (and not the opening lyrics) include the phrase "It can't be love," but that is not the title of the song. Unfortunately the David Meeker article cited as secondary source for this also gets it wrong. Would anyone like to correct it? You can listen to the 1939 recording of "In a Mizz" by Charlie Barnet here on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Iwm9Y0lvs Bobdeckerbob (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to light. I've corrected that information. — WFinch (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Citizen Kane" ripped off from "Imperial Hearst"?

I was just reading "The New Yorker" magazine (Jan. 20, 2014, pg. 74) in which it is reported that Ferdinand Lundberg sued over "Citizen Kane" bearing resemblance to his book "Imperial Hearst". The trial ended in a hung jury and the case was settled out of court. Hollywood is notorious for script theft--does anyone have further information on this particular copyright infringement case? Was "Citizen Kane" derived from "Imperial Hearst"? If it was, then Ferdinand Lundberg is owed an Oscar. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Doniago:

You're quite right about my reversion.  I acted or reacted too quickly.  Mi scusi.  Thanks for the correction.

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

All part of the service! :) DonIago (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Film discussion notice

There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film about the current length of this article (188KB) and the possibility of splitting it, with a new page covering the script and sources (sections 3 and 4).--Deoliveirafan (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

'See also: Twist ending'

This article currently contains a 'See also' link to Twist ending. Do other editors think that belongs here? That article defines its subject as 'A twist ending is a plot twist occurring near or at the conclusion of a story, an unexpected conclusion to a work of fiction that causes the audience to reevaluate the narrative or characters.' You can argue over how much this applies to Citizen Kane, but personally, I don't think it really qualifies. The identity of 'Rosebud' is the central mystery of the film, so it's not exactly unexpected that the film ends by revealing it; and it's not the kind of shocking, out-of-nowhere reveal that causes the viewer to reexamine everything they've seen so far, which is more what I think of by the term 'twist ending'. (For example, the endings of The Usual Suspects, The Sixth Sense and Fight Club.) What do others think?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robofish (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree; I've removed it from the list. — WFinch (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not really important what rosebud is, as Jerry Thomas concludes "I guess Rosebud is just a piece in a puzzle...the missing peice." (this is how I remember the quote to be) Rosebud is a mystery throughout the movie but really its not really important that rosebud is the sled. The really story is not about Thomas but about Kane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.160.185 (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth

THE MOST COMPLETE INVESTIGATION IN THE ORIGINS AND MAKING OF CITIZEN KANE. This is a very good website/author (Cinephilia & Beyond), and it has citations. I'm not sure when this was posted; I saw it mentioned on Twitter just now. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Greatest film lists

I have deleted the following names of greatest films lists which named Citizen Kane as the greatest film of all time:

• FIAF Centenary List
• France Critics Top 10
• Russia Top 10
• Romanian Critics Top 10

I was unable to find good sources for any of these lists but if someone else finds sources please put them back in the article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

PR Followup comments

I was asked for another opinion on the article since the PR above. Some comments:

• The lead still doesn't follow the structure of the actual article.
• It looks like the issues with poor or infrequent citation are, on first glance, taken care of.
  • In terms of what's in the article, especially in the pre-production section, I think it might do better to not rely on or quote so heavily Welles' biographer. Summary style is good, and considering a biographer is not necessarily the most impartial source it should probably be weighted appropriately instead of being treated in places as de facto fact.
• Scope and coverage: the sections "Raising Kane" and "The Scripts of Citizen Kane" start getting waaay too far into the weeds of a component of the film. My first instinct would be to ruthlessly cut and summarize this stuff. You could also argue that it's notable enough for its own article, in which case the authorship of Citizen Kane should be shunted off. Right now the actual writing section and following are longer than many articles on their own.
  • On the same topic, the "sources" section rambles on, and often feels like it contains trivia connected by subheadings, rather than summarizing the influences on the film's characters.
  • Spending a paragraph on each film that was influenced by Citizen Kane seems excessive.
  • I'm not really sure auction prices for memorabilia of the film deserve or need detail in a subsection.

In short, I think pretty much everything the article should have is in there—but it could do with some tightening and sharper organization. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Citizen Kane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This looks like it'll be a pretty quick review. Just give me a few days to fully read the article and make sure that there aren't any problems I'm not seeing. My assessment should be done today or tomorrow. From what I'm seeing so far, the sources look great and the article is extremely in-depth. It might even go too in-depth in places but that's not a reason to decline a GA review.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Good work. Thanks to everybody who spent hours making this article great--your work is appreciated! :)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Refs are great.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I don't think it's a big problem, but get consensus on the splitting the article issue before someone takes this to FA.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Some vandalism, as to be expected, but no noticeable edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Congratulations!

Kael section overblown

The section dealing with film critic Pauline Kael's discredited "exposè" Raising Kane is overly long and unnecessarily detailed.

It is clear even within the existing section that this essay was the work of a dishonest critic/writer with an agenda, who studiously avoided interviewing any of the living principles in the matter who might have contradicted her preconceived theories, who conveniently "lost" most of the notes of those interviews which allegedly supported her, and who very likely stole material from other, autheitic researchers.

Really, I don't see that much more than that needs to be said in this article. The level of detail provided would be more appropriate in an independent article on the "Raising Kane" essay itself, or as a subsection in the biographical articles on Kael or Wells. 67.206.183.168 (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, I hadn't seen this comment. I contributed the "Raising Kane" section here, and the other day I trimmed it and created a separate article for "Raising Kane". — WFinch (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Failure or Success?

In the Hearst's response section, within two sentences the film is called a "relative failure" and a "modest success"

"The Oscar-nominated documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane lays the blame for the film's relative failure squarely at the feet of Hearst. The film did decent business at the box office; it went on to be the sixth highest grossing film in its year of release, a modest success its backers found acceptable."

The "sixth highest grossing film" of the year hardly seems like any reasonable definition of a "failure" -- particularly during wartime, and especially in view of Hearst's active opposition to the film.

So which is it: failure or success?

"Approved critics"?

"The film currently has an incredibly rare 100% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 66 reviews by approved critics."

What, exactly, constitutes an "approved critic"? A critic that only writes positive reviews of movies that the editors happen to like? It's hard to believe that 66 unbiased reviewers wouldn't have even a single negative comment about such a controversial film.

Blu-ray disc?

This:

The film was released on Blu-ray Disc on September 13, 2011, for a special 70th anniversary edition.

seems out of place in the lead section of the article. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Gino Corrado

Welles later said that casting character actor Gino Corrado in the small part of the waiter at the El Rancho broke his heart. Corrado had appeared in many Hollywood films, often as a waiter, and Welles wanted all of the actors to be new to films.[51]

I don't understand what this means: Was Welles' heart broken because an actor of so many films had to play such small roles? There are numerous other actors in the film who had appeared in films before this. --Clibenfoart (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Read an interview of Welles. They are incredibly entertaining...and incredibly unreliable. He once claimed that he was the great grandson of Gideon Welles, possibly just for the sport of seeing if Dick Cavett would believe it. He was making a point about wanting the film to have actors and actresses that the general audience was unfamiliar with and wouldn't recognize, but was disappointed that he cast this character actor that would be recognized by the audience, specifically in a role that he was known to often play. Splitting hairs about the factual accuracy of any quotation attributed to Welles and trying to evaluate them by a set standard of rules is a waste of time, just enjoy the ride. All you can do is make it clear in this or any articlethat this is something that Welles said or claimed to believe.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Screenplay for Citizen Kane

So, I've created articles for "Raising Kane" and Sources for Citizen Kane and trimmed things here accordingly. Reading over the most recent discussion, is there consensus to summarize section 3.2 Screenplay and all of its subsections on this article, and create a separate main article on the screenplay? That's a daunting task but I'd prefer doing that to having the content cut significantly. The story of that screenplay is simply a long story. — WFinch (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This sub-article (Screenplay for Citizen Kane) has been created. — WFinch (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Citizen Kane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331174817/http://www.filmsite.org/villvoice.html to http://www.filmsite.org/villvoice.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419221742/http://www.loc.gov:80/film/registry_titles.php to http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512220431/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/orson-welles-camera-among-70-items-auction to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/orson-welles-camera-among-70-items-auction

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Citizen Kane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208071230/http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/whats_your_favorite_movie.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/whats_your_favorite_movie.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kane2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Citizen Kane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304132406/http://dedijer.com/article_frames.asp?picts=1&article=The_man_behind_Attac to http://dedijer.com/article_frames.asp?picts=1&article=The_man_behind_Attac
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100316162210/http://www.cahiersducinema.com/article1337.html to http://www.cahiersducinema.com/article1337.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Pterodactyls

Some of the birds in the film are, in fact, pterodactyls: [1]. Not sure this is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Main image

Is there any reason that the Style B poster is the main image for this article? Why not use the Style A poster? 104.193.154.164 (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Bias

This article struggles with real bias and point of view issues. I mean, I struggle to understand how an article about arguably the greatest film ever made, is mostly negative? So, have to assume that people have set out to make it negative. There are thousands of quotes praising every aspect of the movie, but you use mostly negative quotes?

For every section, the balance is 2-3 negative quotes and 1 positive quote. Is that representative of the actual real world response to one of the top 5 most important films in history?

I know it’s trendy to hate popular mainstream things, but this article is a real disservice. And it’s embarrassing to Wikipedia that such an important article is so amateurish, childish and frankly, bad.

2A02:C7F:18AE:4900:563:E9FC:1C43:4E7B (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition of the film Mank

A link to the wiki page for the recent Netflix film that is a dramatization of the relationships Orson Welles, William Randolph Hearst, and Marion Davies had with the writer of the screenplay for Citizen Kane, Herman J. Mankiewicz is overdue in this article. Since this is my first time editing Wikipeida I hope someone else can help me do it justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mank RevPhil Sano — Preceding unsigned comment added by BikeSmut (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Kenneth Williams quote

Although the quote by Kenneth Williams from his diary is correct I think the interpretation if it is incorrect. It’s more likely that he mean ‘bolshy’ as in bolsheveik especially given his political leanings. There’s no definition of boshey online, not even in slang dictionaries. 2A00:23C5:5082:6101:1D71:DDC2:3A50:9E99 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I’ve taken out someone’s speculation that it is derived from “bosh” which was, in England, a common word at the time for “nonsense”. That’s pure WP:OR - and I don’t think that there’s any evidence of it becoming an adjective like that. Williams probably did mean “bolshy”, but as his editor, Russell Davies, left it as “boshey” without annotation and no reliable source as far as I can tell has given it that gloss, we’ll have to leave it as “boshey” without explanation. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Citizen Kane and Donald Trump

I note that the article has a mention that Rupert Murdoch might be compared to Citizen Kane. This leads me to a query as to whether other contemporary material should be included in this article. For instance, academic Sarah Churchwell in her 2018 book Behold America suggested that Donald Trump's favourite film was Citizen Kane, (p.294) although he seems oblivious to the full significance of the movie. Churchwell also commented that Trump bears a striking resemblance to WIlliam Randolph Hearst (p.297), the putative subject for the film. Should observations of this nature be included in this article? I know that these come from a RS, although that in itself does not mean the information should be included. I look forward to hearing from other editors on this. Sue2016 (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It is an interesting detail, but I do not think it belongs here. Maybe in an article more about Trump's personal life? The way I see it is, when there is an association between two topics, it does not necessarily mean it has to be on both topics' articles. An example of this can be actors. Film articles are not going to list every actor that appeared in the film, but on actors' articles, it will list every film they've been in. So sometimes an actor won't have a big enough role in a film to be in that film's article, so the association is only mentioned in one place. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s the other way around. It’s trivia in an article about Trump but to say that there have been repeated comparisons between a character in a movie and a President of the United States (as is the case with Kane and Trump) is notable in an article about the movie. I intend to add the following to the article:

Comparisons have been made between the career and character of Donald Trump and Charles Foster Kane. Citizen Kane is reported to be one of Trump’s favorite films, and his biographer Tim O’Brien has said that Trump is fascinated by and identifies with Kane.

References

DeCausa (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Belated response, I know, but thanks for taking action on this, with the addition to the Kane article. Sue2016 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Critism may not be the right word.

It is commonly forgot that the term "criticism," actually refers to either positive critism or negative criticism (don't believe me look it up). Perhaps it would be smarter to put a section that says positive criticism and negative critism. I don't know it's just an idea. I think it would make this page look much more professional although technically the way your doing it isn't wrong just not proper. -James Pandora Adams

Per the MOS it would seem most appropriate to move this into a Critical Response section under Reception. Doniago (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but what I mean is why don't you put under criticism "Negative criticism," or just have both positive and negative reviews of the movie under criticism. I don't know that would seem like the smarter thing to do. -Again James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC) If it okay with you guy I'm going to go ahead and do it it's only one word. -James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.136.203 (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The word criticism by itself can mean negative. in my experience it usually pertains to the negative. The word criticize does mean negative. I would think you need to say positive criticism to indicate it's positive and not the other way around. 151.203.70.159 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, you just responded to a thread that's over a decade old. DonIago (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I respect that immensely 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Reception in lead

I feel like it would be more appropriate to say that Citizen Kane "is considered by many critics and experts to be one of the greatest films ever made" rather than "...the greatest film ever made." Critics and experts often compare it to films like The Godfather and Vertigo in terms of its quality - and whether they say Kane is better than them depends on a case-by-case basis. A lot of lists rank films like Vertigo above it - such as in the 2012 Sight And Sound Poll - and thus I think that declaring it as the universal golden-standard (as opposed to one of them) isn't appropriate for the article. What does everyone else think? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I also think that the term 'experts' is inappropriate - as it is extremely broad and vague. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Presumably in this context, 'experts' means film experts, though it seems a little redundant to include that next to film critics, unless we're talking about film experts who aren't critics (I'm not inclined to read through the Reception section right now to confirm that).

As for the other part, many critics (and experts?) do consider this film to be the greatest film ever made. Many others consider it one of the greatest films ever made. Both statements are true, but mean different things. The statement as-is doesn't imply that that it's a universal anything, given that it says 'many'. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I've just reread the Reception section and it doesn't mention film experts who aren't critics.

I understand what you meant by your second paragraph. However - if many people think that's it the greatest and many others think it's one of the greatest - I feel like the statement as is lends undue weight to the previous opinion. What do you think of my assessment? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

If the Reception section doesn't mention any non-critics then I'm okay with snipping that bit.

I think it's more significant that many film critics think it's the greatest film ever made than it is that many film critics consider it one of the greatest films ever made, in part because the second phrasing is ambiguous. One of the top three? Top five? Top fifty? DonIago (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the Reception section doesn't mention any non-critics who think of the film positively.

I understand your point regarding the second phrasing - but many films (such as Seven Samurai, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, It's A Wonderful Life and The Godfather) have Wikipedia leads saying they're considered one of the greatest films ever made. These assertions are often reliably sourced - either next to that statement or in the body of the article. This is actually a standard practice. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the point where we need opinions from additional editors. :) DonIago (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much :D

How do you think we should go about that? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You're a far more experienced editor than me which is why I was asking :) I'd look it up but I don't even know what to search! 92.0.35.8 (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As we're talking about a film, I'd probably start with asking for additional opinions at WT:FILM (note that projects with an interest in this article are mentioned at the top of this page). You're welcome to post a note there, but please let me know if you'd like me to do so. DonIago (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you so much! I'll post a note there right away :) 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I've just posted the note! 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Now that we've had input from other editors, what do you reckon we should do? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has an issue with removing the part about "experts" since the Reception section doesn't seem to bear that part out.

Personally I feel, "the best or one of the best" is clumsy phrasing, and Kingsif below appears to support my opinion that it's sufficient to say "the best". I agree that one (or more) sources may be a good thing to include, either here or in the Reception section, that explicitly say that. If this film is mentioned prominently at List of films considered the best then I imagine it's possible to 'borrow' a couple of those sources for use here.

Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Please could I ask you why you think "the best or one of the best" is awkward phrasing? :) 92.0.35.8 (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Because if many critics regard the film as the best film ever made, then what does it add to say that a bunch of other critics consider it one of the best? The point's already been made and arguably implied. DonIago (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That's true. In that case, would you mind 'borrowing' a couple of the sources from List of films considered the best and including them in Kane's article? 92.11.148.33 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done DonIago (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'll remove the experts bit :) 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Saw this discussion under related changes. MOS:PUFFERY is a guideline to consider here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think MOS: PUFFERY applies here but I'm willing to listen to other parties - including yourself - out on why it does. Plenty of similarly-acclaimed films like the ones I linked use reliable sources to support that claim. And, there's an entire, well-sourced article called List of films considered the best which those assertions always link to. Citizen Kane is featured prominently on said article. There is an abundance of sources in Kane's article which support the claim that it has that standing. I'm going to ask for additional opinions on WT:FILM but please feel free to add your own input :) 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It would apply if we were not in a world where one of the fast facts about the film is that it is considered the best; we are, though, and so to say it (especially with the retrospect of over 50 years) is both accurately summarising the response and conveying the most pertinent information about the film from sources. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I completely agree 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think it is fine to say "the best" without "one of", but would want some kind of reference to a source about this film being given that appreciation over others most of the time, and may consider using quotation marks. As another thought, have we considered "the best or one of the best" as a possible phrasing? Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think your suggestions are both good ideas :) 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Best film sources

While it's true that Kane is widely regarded as the GOAT, I think there should be a bigger of pool of sources to support this in the lead - cos currently they all come from BFI Stephanie921 (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I've changed my mind Stephanie921 (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

balsa

Two news stories say the sled was made of balsa:

• referenced in the article: "Hidden Treasures: Prop Art". The New York Times. June 13, 1982. Archived from the original on November 29, 2014. Retrieved December 10, 2014.
• Peter W. Kaplan (June 10, 1982). "The Rosebud Legacy". The Washington Post.

In Wikipedia, we have to go with what reliable sources say. However, I suspect that both newspapers are wrong; I think balsa is far to fragile to be used as a sled, and I don't think sleds were ever made of balsa. I believe the filmmakers took generic sleds and stenciled the Rosebud name and image on. We have to go with reliable sources, but perhaps someone can look further into this. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Aggregator scores

The Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores are under both ‘Contemporary responses’ and ‘Re-evaluation’. I propose to remove one of the two. 143.176.139.165 (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Good catch; I've removed the less hefty paragraph from the Re-evaluation section. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Opening description

I know most film entries would have the cast, crew and production information first, then all the accolades towards the end. Is Citizen Kane so influential that it's above everything else? Dudenik69 (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Considering how often the film is cited as the greatest film ever made, in this case giving the substantive accolades more weight in the lead seems merited to me. That said, I'd be open to considering a rewrite. MOS:FILMLEAD doesn't appear to proscribe an order for this, but even if it did, that's a guideline. DonIago (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)