Talk:Keane (film)

Finished Article

I think this is more or less finished now, i do not think it needs anything else, if anyone has any comments please let me know. Murphy Inc 01:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What, you mean apart from a great two days' work? Not really. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, i have had enough now ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murphy Inc (talk • contribs)

People making edits already

Hi Folks, look i know this is wikipedia and people are encouraged to make changes but i have only just finished putting alot of effort into getting this article up to scratch. Is there really a need to make changes so soon? The person who added the word 'American' to "Keane is a 2004 American film..." Really, is there a need?? I have deleted this word already, i have looked at other film articles and not found one that makes a point of stating it is an American film, the infobox explains all that needs to be said.

And besides do you not have manners? Would it not had been far more polite to comment on here before editing my hard work, at least you could have had the grace to leave a note to explain your changes. Murphy Inc 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your work here is great, and you have made a very short stub become a very good article (perhaps even a good article) in about 2 days. This is made even more spectacular by how new to Wikipedia you are, with this article being among your very first edits. However, despite how you did this single-handedly, and are understandably proud of your work, you should perhaps have a quick read through of WP:OWN. On top of this, when you are on the editing page, scroll down, and you will see the following:

• "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly[...] by others, do not submit it."

The changes made by User:Angmering were good faith edits. He was merely trying to improve the article even further.

Again, I understand you are incredibly proud of this article (and I would be too in your situation), but remember that this is Wikipedia, where no one individual really owns articles, and if someone makes an edit (unless it's vandalism), then we should usually assume good faith.

Like I say, great work on this article, and if you have any questions at all, or need assistance on anything, feel free to contact me at my talk page. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dude, i guess you are right, i am maybe being a little too protective. I will drop you a note on your talk page as there is probably something i need to understand about the use of internal links. I noticed User:Angmering has linked more words than i had originally intended, words like France, England etc... I was trying to keep internal links within the context of the article. i.e. links that would add value to the article such as Schizphrenia. If people do not know what England is then i am not sure they would be reading this article in the first place.

User:Angmering thanks for your input anyhow, i have not reversed all your changes, if you have any comments or input please feel free to make a comment here. Thanks. 124.186.162.77 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that people don't know what England is, as probably most people in the world will at least know that its capital city is London, for example. The thing is, though, that people can still learn things from the article even if they know what it is. Likewise, I might know what this film is, but if I saw a link to it from somewhere else, I might click it anyway to find out even more, you know? :)

Of course, there is a kind of invisible line that would be too much. having excessive amounts of links can be confusing, especially if some of them are to redirects, or things that aren't related to the article. So in this article, wikilinking England isn't too bad, as some people will want to know more about it. However, look at the following for a comparison.

This is what the article currently looks like:

• Keane is a 2004 independent, low budget film written and directed by Lodge Kerrigan and introduced by the executive producer Steven Soderbergh.

But, too many wikilinks could make it look like this:

• Keane is a 2004 independent, low budget film written and directed by Lodge Kerrigan and introduced by the executive producer Steven Soderbergh.

Do you see? :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Fail

I have failed the article for GA status. My reasons are:

• The article is not comprehensive enough, particuraly concerning the sections near the end of the article
• Although the references are properly formatted, most of the article's sections rely solely on one or two references each
• The Alternative version section is a stub, and needs extending
• Release dates and Critical reaction could do with merging, with the latter being placed as a type-3 header. Interpretation could also be merged as a type-3 header
• The Featured cast section needs extending

• The Giant Puffin • 12:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And this is where this process falls down, You have asked me to extend the featured cast section, great, shall i call the director up and ask him to re-shoot the movie and add some extra parts this time because Wikipedia say that a film with less than 5 characters in it cannot be a Good Article?

The alternative version is a stub? okay, so once i have explained what the extended version is about what else should i say? Should i make it up? just write any old crap just to make the section long enough? what happened to be concise and to the point?

The Project Film Style Guidelines suggest that the Distribution (i have used the heading release dates) and critical reaction sections are separate sections, you are suggesting that i merge them now, so to be a Good Article i need to ignore the style guidelines? now i am confused!

"most of the articles sections rely soley on one or two references each"!!!!!!!!!!! Count again dude, there are two main sections with three refernces in each, and the other sections are references where needed and only when needed, again do you want me to add stuff in for the sake of it?

What is a good article?

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to sources used; (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;[2][3] and (c) contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[4] and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.[5]

6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.

So, please tell me exactly which of your reasons for failing this article fit into any of the above guidelines?

If you had told me it had failed because it was badly written or not neutral or anything that falls into the above then i would say thanks for reading it and giving your views and i would go away and try to fix it. BUT you are not giving me that chance because your reasons are impossible to address with this article subject and you are asking me to go against the style guidelines in some cases so i really am bloody confused. Murphy Inc 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The main reason for failing is that it is not comprehensive enough, and does not have a lot of information. Now I appreciate that it is a low budget film, and if there is no other information on the internet or in books, then fine. I apoligise if made it sound like the article was bad, because it isnt. If you truly cant find any more information to add, then thats fine. But at the moment, it looks like more general information could be added. The reason I suggested merging the two sections is because the release dates section isnt long. Again, thats not your fault, you can only have so much information about release dates. But, seeing as reaction is also to do with the film's release, it is possible to merge the two together. Its only a possibility. - • The Giant Puffin • 14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I have asked for a review as per my response above. Murphy Inc 13:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it, since you have not sufficiently developed the article since the last review. I would like to see more critical discussion of the film. It sounds like this movie has a lot of salient choices of mise en scene and montage, but the "Filming" section does not go into enough depth to explore these artistic aspects of the film. Of course, I am not asking for original research; I expect there to be discussion in the film journals about this movie. There should be in-depth sources about the film beyond newspaper reviews. As of now, though, it's a solid B-class article. nadav (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unfree photos following a request by the copyright holder

What are you doing dude? Firstly you say "citation needed" on two comments that are fully references, are you just playing games? AND why the hell have you deleted the screenshots??? You stated that the movie maker have not released the pictures for press use, well it may have escaped your attention Wikipedia is not the press!!! And how do you know, has the movie maker been in touch with you? They the pictures were clearly referenced "fair use - screenshots from the movie" with a description as to why they were fair use, what is the big idea deleting them and vandelising someones elses work? Murphy Inc 23:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The movie director, Lodge Kerrigan, sent an email to the Wikimedia Foundation alleging copyright infringement, claiming these photos were not fair use because they were not meant as press photographs. He also stated the article contained erroneous claims. OTRS ticket David.Monniaux 00:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And you could not have said this first? Everything in this article is referenced, i still do not understand the "citation needed" when there the second statement is clearly referenced if you look at the quote. So if someone complains to Wikipedia about copyright infringement we just pull the content even though we believe it is fair use? Are you a moderator or something?

You need to reply to the email and ask what claims he says are incorrect, as i wrote and researched this article i would like to know tooMurphy Inc 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As his userpage states, User:David.Monniaux is not only an admin on the English Wikipedia, but he's also on the board of Wikimédia France. Occasionally, Wikimedia gets emails from various people, claiming certain things should be removed for various reasons. Usually, whether their claims are correct or not, those particular things are often temporarily removed during discussions with that party, to avoid lawsuits and such things. Occasionally, this can lead to office action. In this case, however, the interesting thing here is that the images seem to fit into WP:FAIR#Images: "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television."

Still, see WP:OTRS, and perhaps follow the suggestions there. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Wikimédia France has nothing to do with this: this regards the Wikimedia Foundation. However, when a film maker states that the photos that we use are not press release photos and demands that we cease to use those pictures, there is a clear question: do we want to go quarreling with that person, with the possible intervention of lawyers, for those pictures? This is actually a question that we have to decide fairly often when people write to the Wikimedia Foundation and demand that we take down certain content: how much are they in the right, and what do we want to stand for?

It turns out that the status of unfree content (read here: fair use content) on Wikipedia is highly disputed. It is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation, expressed in resolutions from the board of trustees, that free content is to be preferred over unfree content, and that the use of unfree content should be limited. Indeed, some Wikipedia in non-English languages ban fair use altogether. So, the Foundation is not intent on pushing "fair use".

Back to the original problem, it seemed that none of these photographs showed specific scenes that were discussed in the body of the article. The argument that each of these specific photos was necessary for critical review is thus weakened, especially since the movie maker has made a press kit available. All the photos in the kit are "fair use" with a very strong rationale, are available in high resolution, and I invite you to use them instead of screenshots.

As for the problems with the article itself, I have no details. David.Monniaux 05:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't read the majority of the article before now, so I wasn't aware that was the case. I've struck through that sentence in my previous post. For the record, I actually agree with the action taken in this instance, and I take a dim view of "fair-use over free-use" in general. I just tried my best to explain the situation to User:Murphy Inc, as he is new to Wikipedia. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Look i have no problem if this is the case and the director has indeed complained, i wonder though what measures are in place to ensure that it was in fact a real complaint? i.e. if i now register an email address say steven.speilberg@gmail.com and then used it to email wiki complaining about every screenshot on articles about my films would they all get deleted straightaway without any comment or discussion? This surely is open to major abuse? I would be very interested in knowing what in the article the director is disputing? Why don't you leave a comment Mr Kerrigan let us know what you think, i would have thought that this article was a pretty good promotion for your excellent film i am starting to wonder know if i should find some negative reviews to balanace the piece out, i am sure there are some out there if i look hard enough! 124.185.10.99 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is, in legal terms, we most probably cannot argue "fair use" for images supposed to generally illustrate a film (as supposed to images for which we have individual descriptions of particular scenes) whereas a press kit is available. I'd be glad if, instead of disputing everything, you would instead use the photographs from the press kit! Remember: this is a decision based on legal issues, not something that has to be discussed editorially.

As for the inaccuracies, he did not elaborate and I don't think it is appropriate for the Foundation (which has no editorial role) to ask him for comment. David.Monniaux 10:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing anything, i am questioning, there is a difference. I do not want to think that the views of an artist should overide any article about any of his/her work. I do not want to use images from the press kit for an article about the movie, press kit images are for reviews and advertisemnts for a movie, they are a way for the owners of the movie to try and have some kind of editorial control over what is said about the movie. If we cannot use the screenshots we chose then i think the article is better without any images at all. You may not agree with my concerns and that is fair enough but they are legitimate concerns and the idea that i do not agree with you means i am disputing everything then that would suggest that your opinion is worth more then mine that i would dispute. I am not questioning the use of the images if indeed the copyright holder has asked them to be removed, i understand the legalities involved. It is a real worry that on the basis of a single email (that as the author and researcher of much of this article I am not even allowed to see) content can be deleted from Wikipedia with no reason given (until asked for!) and no proof that the complaint actually exists or that the complaint was not a result of somebody else pretending to be the person complaining. This actually gives me no trust whatsoever in the independance of anything i read in Wikipedia and therefore i am going to stop contributing to this site. Murphy Inc 10:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just going to mention one thing here, about seeing the email. As mentioned on WP:OTRS, "The contents of emails sent to the OTRS addresses are confidential."

The proof that this particular email exists is given above, linked again for convenience here: [1]. While regular users like you and I are not able to see these, if you were to ask a different OTRS volunteer to click that link, they would confirm it contains the specified email.

As for leaving the project, I hope you change your mind, and I would be sad to see it happen, as in my brief experience you are a very talented editor (you're certainly better at writing articles than I am, and I have been here ages), and this article is a good one, considering it is almost exclusively your work. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the disappeared images were very dark, vertically stretched and the colour looked a bit off. I'm speculating, but I sure wouldn't want distorted images representing my work. I imagine a press kit image would be fine. Doctor Sunshine talk 08:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Keane movie poster.jpg

Image:Keane movie poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Schizophrenic?

The character of Keane is described as "schizophrenic" in this article. Nothing in this film suggests this is the case. He clearly is paranoid from his heavy use of cocaine, but "schizophrenic"? Not in the film I saw. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keane (film). 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/20061211184338/http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/notes/lkerriganinterview.htm to http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/notes/lkerriganinterview.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)