Talk:The Caine Mutiny (1954 film)

Michael Caine

Why was the Michael Caine trivia removed?! 22:56, November 10, 2002 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mintguy (talk • contribs) .

Because it's already in the Michael Caine article, where it belongs. Wasted Time R 04:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question. Why can't there be a brief reference to it here? SlowJog (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Vessel Class

It was a DMS, a destroyer mine sweeper, not a minesweeper. 22:54, March 6, 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.77.102 (talk • contribs) .

Ferrers arm

Hi; In the courtroom scene, Ferrer's wearing a cast. Silly question, did he actually have a busted wing?

• Don't know--but it's part of the plot that he had been injured. Greenwald was not a military lawyer--he was a civilian lawyer who joined the Navy and flew fighter planes (notice his green uniform in one scene)--he got the Caine case while recovering from injuries received in a crackup in his plane (in the book his hands had been burned).--Buckboard 09:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I left the bit from Moviemistakes.com in the text, but it seems trivial trivia. The whole thing depends on the length of the chain, not how tight a circle a DMS can turn. Follow me here: Wouk was aboard two DMS during the war; Wouk wrote the book about a DMS; Wouk wrote the scene wherein the Caine cuts its own tow-line. Somebody at MovieMistakes.com forget to tell him?--Buckboard 11:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Queeg

Ok. I'm hoping maybe someone can straighten it out. Why, in the end, does Greenwald (and SINPAC) maintain that Queeg is NOT incompetent and that Maryk was not justified under 185?

1. Queeg on numerous occasions would blow his stack without cause. Example -- when he found out Keefer was writing a novel, he exploded. There was no justification for this -- the matter of a crewman's personal activities (baring violations of the law or regulations) are not under his jurisdiction.
2. The water crisis. When he ordered the men deprived of water, it seems to me Maryk would have been justified to act then. How can depriving the men of water be construed as an attempt to enforce discipline? The action endangered the lives of the crew and officers. Three days without water will result in death. In extreme heat as in the tropics, death could occur sooner. This would clearly constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
3. After the tow-line incident, it is clear that his superiors know -- or at least suspect -- him to be incompetent.
4. On his own, he showed himself to be a raving lunatic in the courtroom. This would show that the doctors who testified for the prosecution were probably told what to write in their reports. One doctor on the stand verbally admitted that Queeg was a sick man. This was omitted from his report -- and under the laws of perjury, an omission is as much a lie as a fabrication.
5. When Greenwald confronts Maryk and Keith afterward, he points out that if they had acted differently at a certain time, it would not have been necessary for him to have relieved Queeg during the storm. This makes no sense. What the man was in the past was irrelevant; the issue was what he was in the present. Maryk examined the Captain on the bridge -- he spoke to him, passed his hand in front of the Captain's face, snapped his fingers in front of his face, and got no reaction of any kind. The man was – only for the moment yes – catatonic. Queeg didn't even protest Maryk ‘s actions for 2 full minutes. Given the fact that he was clearly catatonic at the time, how could he NOT have been justified in taking command?

From all this -- including the crazy and outlandish statements Queeg made on the stand -- why is it the opinion of everyone that he is NOT incompetent?

For the record: in the book, Keith ultimately became Captain of the Cain. Maryk was given command of an LST. The Court-Martial convening authority disapproved the verdict (this goes against the principle that a trial verdict can not be impeached) and issued them both formal reprimands (brazenly proclaiming them guilty). -- Jason Palpatine 13:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Greenwald maintained that Queeg was a flawed but adequate commander who was undermined by subordinates who should have helped him, particularly Keefer. He only went after Queeg because Maryk ("the wrong man") was on trial. Greenwald gives a rather impassioned monologue about how the country owed a debt to professional servicemen like Queeg; a point that Wouk would explore more deeply in his Victor Henry novels. A very powerful scene, both in the movie and the book. -- Cranston Lamont 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read Greenwald's rather impassioned monologue -- more than once -- trying to understand what he was saying. His question to Maryk and Keith and their answer struck me as odd. Maryk said that it would not have been necessary for him to relieve Queeg if they had supported him when he deserted the other destroyers under fire -- i.e. helped him hide his cowardice. My answer in his place would be Yes. What happened was inevitable. What he was in the past -- no matter how distinguished his record -- is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is what he is now. -- Jason Palpatine 01:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Verdict

Out of curiosity, can anyone explain to me what gave the Navy brass (whoever it was) the authority to revoke a verdict of a general court-martial? Our laws have always held that a verdict can not be impeached. --Jason Palpatine 22:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the court martial convening authority can "disapprove" of a verdict, and this disapproval can be "endorsed" (approved) up the chain of command. This is what happened in the Caine Mutiny. This disapproval has no bearing on the verdict -- it is not overturned -- but becomes part of the record. AllanJ 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

An important point is that in the book the officers were not charged with making a mutiny, but with conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. Despite the disapproval of the verdict, Maryk and Keith managed to resume their Navy careers more or less unscathed, unlike Queeg who was given a desk job as the Navy recognised he was not fit to command a ship at sea, therefore confirming that the officers were justified in their actions. Keefer also eventually

gets command of a ship and proves himself a physical coward as well as a moral one. Nevertheless Keefer and Keith manage to restore a degree of friendship.

Exile 10:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Split article

I'd recommend this article be split into The Caine Mutiny for the novel, and The Caine Mutiny (film) for the film. There are significant enough differences between the book and film - a lot could be said on a literary front about the book that has nothing to do with the film. It would also help with all the "Projects" and templates to separate movies from books. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

USS Doyle

Official US Navy history has the USS Doyle (DD-494) as the destroyer used in the movie the Caine Mutiny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaveza (talk • contribs).

This article says it was USS Thompson (DD-627), which is confirmed in that article. Do you have a source that says it was the Doyle? -- Stbalbach 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t5/thompson-ii.htm says

Commencing on 8 June 1953, Thompson served as a Columbia Movie Studio "prop" during the filming of the Herman Wouk novel, The Caine Mutiny. Operating out of San Francisco for one week, Thompson became Caine, while at the same time serving as the model for many of the Columbia sets used in the filming of the on board scenes.

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/d5/doyle.htm says

[Doyle] returned to the western Pacific between 2 February and 21 July 1953, visiting Midway, Guam, Kwajalein, and various ports in the Philippines, as well as serving as station ship at Hong Kong for 5 weeks.

Doyle arrived at Charleston, S.C., 7 September 1953 from Long Beach.

So I'm not seeing the "Official US Navy history" that says Doyle appeared in the movie. It's not impossible however; at least two other ships, USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786) and USS Surfbird (AM-383), had cameos. Perhaps Doyle did as well. But without a source it shouldn't go into the article.

—wwoods 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Strawberries

I inserted a piece which was taken out about the quirkiness behind Queeg and the strawberries. Maryk tells the other officers that the mess boys confessed to eating the strawberries, but Queeg refuses to believe their story and instead accuses the officers of having a duplicate key to the food locker. Is this a valid point to bring up? It seems open-and-shut about what happened to the strawberries, but Queeg refuses to accept it. USN1977 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Indifferent Children

Regarding this passage recently added and moved here:

There are some similarities between "The Caine Mutiny" and Louis Auchincloss's The Indifferent Children (1947). The plot of both books takes place in the unheroic backwaters of the WWII US Navy (Wouk's book in the Pacific Theatre, but the Caine's part in the fighting is marginal and the conflict is entirely among its crew, rather than with the Japanese - while Auchincloss' book is set in the Carribean, far from any fighting front); both books have as the main protagonist the scion of a rich family, who becomes a naval officer without seeking a heroic or combatant role, and who undergoes a fast character development in the course of the story; and in both books there is a central role to a court martial in which the defence lawyer brillantly saves his client from a seemingly hopeless situation - only to afterwards turn on the client and tell him what a heel he truly is. There is, however, no direct evidence of Wouk being influenced by the earlier book.

I'm concerned about WP:NOR - if we can cite someone on this, it would be interesting to add - but I'm concerned there is an unspoken hint at plagiarism. Given how popular CM was, someone must have noted the similarities. -- Stbalbach 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Searched google, google books and Amazon's A9.com on a combination of "caine mutiny" + "indifferent children", as well as "wouk auchincloss" and couldn't find anything. -- Stbalbach 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This little sally never pretended to be anything but Original Research, and an unpleasant little hint of plagiarism at that (it took 57 years after the supposed event for somebody to notice the resemblance.) Are we compelled to keep OR in Talk forever? Seven years now. I hesitate to delete it only in case there's some procedure to follow first which I don't know about. A trial balloon of OR that never panned out. I propose somebody cut it. Profhum (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't generally delete Talk page discussion because it's meant to be a permanent record of discussion relevant to the article. That said, this could likely safely be archived. If you'd like more information, please refer to WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mutiny 0.jpg

Image:Mutiny 0.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Innacuracy vs, artistic license

There is a difference. An innacuracy is when something doesn't accord with reality - with the real facts of the real world. Thus, there's an issue if a boat such as the Caine could really steam in a circle and cut the tow line. That is a potential (if not proven) inaccuracy.

The age of Queeg is not a fact of the real world. It's something made up for a piece of fiction, a book. In the translation of a book from a film, things get changed, for various reasons -- in this case the age of a character is changed (de facto) because the actor chosen to play the part is the not age specified in the book. That is artistic license. The makers of the film chose to alter an aspect of the book in order to make the film they wanted to make. They weighed the value of Humprey Bogart in the part versus the value of keeping the character at 30, and made the artistic choice that the one outweighed the other. That's not inaccuracy, it's artistic license.

Now, if in making the film, they had made Queeg a woman, while keeping everything else the same, that would be an inaccuracy, because in the real world women did not captain ships of the U.S. Navy in World War II. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point! Perhaps we should consider changing the section header, as per your suggestion. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I see you've already gotten rid of the "Queeg's age" issue. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I moved it into the section dealing with differences between the book and the script, which is where I think it belongs. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't belong to the script section—it's an innaccuracy, for a very simple reason: In WWII, a 55 year old man would not have command of a minesweeper. And a 55 year old commander would have been cashiered. But if you want to play games, fine—call it "artistic license" and delude yourselves. --TallulahBelle (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A Captain in the Navy is the equivalent of a full Colonel in the Army. So your idea of a Captain with 10 years service in the 20th Century is insane, whereas the idea of a 55 year-old Captain is not. Note that I am talking about the RANK not the ROLE. Lieutenants on occasion commanded ships in WWII. And apparently you don't know the meaning of the word cashiered. SIYFH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3780:D0D0:394C:5611:8A64:9EBC (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If you've got some evidence that in World War II, at the height of a military manpower shortage while the US is fighting the largest war ever seen on Earth in two separate theatres on opposite sides of the world, an experienced ship's captain in his late 40's to middle 50's (the age range that would be reasonable to see Bogart as -- we only say 55 because we happen to know that Bogart was 55 at the time) wouldn't be commanding a minesweeper, please post it. I'd be interested in seeing it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In the novel, Queeg was Annapolis Class of '36. There's that. Now, despite all that silly bluster in your entry about facts concerning WWII, any real Navy will know that there's no way a 55 year old would be given command of a minesweeper—war or no war. (In fact, in the novel, the 30 year old Queeg was disappointed that he was getting only a minesweeper—he'd been hoping for a destroyer, which would have been age-appropriate for the time.) But hey, like I said, delude yourself, what do I care: I'm not the one coming across as ignorant. --TallulahBelle (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When you've got some evidence, please feel free to post it. Despite your telling me to "chill out" diff, and calling me "ignorant" and "deluded" (twice!) in this thread, if you have some actual evidence to support the contention that a man in his late 40's to mid-50's wouldn't be commanding a minesweeper in the midst of World War II, I'm willing to change my mind and admit your point. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some things are so obvious to anyone with any sense, they cannot be proven. For instance, prove that the sky is blue. --TallulahBelle (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

THE SKY IS BLUE?!?!? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, explaining why the sky is blue isn't all that hard, but if you're getting into the whole question of "How do I know that what I perceive as "blue" is the same as what "you" perceive as "blue"?", then we start to talk about qualia, and, frankly, I quail before qualia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote before, "Some things are so obvious to anyone with any sense." Then you start to talk about qualia... Mm-hmm... Do people laugh right in your face, or do they wait for you to turn your back? Please answer, I'm honestly curious. --TallulahBelle (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) In all this nitpicking about Queeg's age and what a person of his rank might be assigned to command seems, to me, to have completely overlooked one important item - - - that Queeg was probably a CAREER Navy man. Even if he wasn't, as an officer, you go where you're told to go -- as perfectly illustrated by the captain that Queeg replaced (the actor, Tom Tully, who played that captain, was 46). All that should cover/explain everything. The movie, in a roundabout way, supports this. Remember when the three officers went to see Fleet Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, Jr.? Halsey was a career Navy man. He became captain at the age of 46 in 1928 -- a non-wartime promotion -- the same year he FIRST TOOK COMMAND of a ship. At age 59 in 1941, he was promoted to Fleet Admiral and served throughout World War Two. And at the beginning of WWII, all the branches of service were extremely short manned. As such, officers were assigned where they were needed regardless of their age; and not all the postings were 'ideal' or what the officer expected or wanted (again, remember the captain Queeg replaced and that captain's attitude as shown in the movie). So, to me, all this yada-yada debate about age and what someone of that age is in command of is pointless blathering. Remember, most of those who had rank had served in World War One stayed in their branch of service between wars; and for Americans, that's a non-wartime service of at least TWENTY-TWO years. Those with rank were NOT youngsters! 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Textual support?

The following text was posted on my talk page. I'm moving it here as the best place for the discussion to take place:

Hi, In the Plot section of The Caine Mutiny (film), you've taken out my contributions on the grounds that "There is no textual evidence that Maryk is 'prepared to forgive and forget'" and that "Keefer's motivations are not made clear in the film". When Keefer thanks him at the celebrations for not revealing his double-cross Maryk does say that the matter is "over and done with" and later tries to dissuade Greenwald from revealing Keefer's treachery with "Let's forget it, Barney". That strikes me as "evidence" enough. What do you need: a written statement by the actors, producers and director?

Also, Greenwald points out that "From the start, [Keefer] hated the Navy", as in it interfered with his writing. In the tow-line incident Queeg does state: "There will be no more novel-writing on the Caine". I think this describes some of Keefer's motivations, which were based on pure selfishness. Granted, Keefer does not make a full confession of his own, but the point of many great works of fiction, from the novel to the cinema, is that it is up to the reader and the audience to try and interpret a character's motivation and pass this on to others who are still a little puzzled by it.

With your permission, I'll restore my contributions. Cheers,--Marktreut (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My response is below. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. The lines you've quoted are not sufficient to support the interpretations you are putting on them. The conversation at the party takes place in front of or in the vicinity of the other officers of the ship, all of whom have to work together. It's possible that Maryk simply doesn't want to go into in under these circumstances, at that time, with those people possibly in hearing distance. He's smoothing out an awkward situation, not in any way saying that he's willing to forgive and forget. I don't need an affadavit from anyone to convince, what I would need is Maryk to say "I forgive you" or a later scene in which his attitude to Keefer is apparent.

As for Keefer's motivations, Greenwald speculates on them, but I do not see any real support for the speculation. Besides this one opinion from a character who's disgusted by what these officers did, there's no neutral source which pins down Keefer's motivations.

Your interpretations are plainly POV, and there is disagreement about them. Therefore, I'll remove them again on the basis of WP:POV and WP:V. As contested facts, you can reinsert them once you have a reliable source to support them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You dismiss my views as POV, but unless you or someone else can come up with better explanations for Maryk's attitude towards Keefer and Keefer's motives, I do not see why mine are not valid enough. If there are better explanations for their behaviour I'll accept them, but short of that I cannot find anything better than the ones I have suggested above.

It seems to me that in spite of your denials nothing short of an affidavit will do.

You're the third editor with whom I have been in conflict with this week. It's taking all the fun out of Wikipedia which I always thought was about people contributing to the knowledge of others or trying to find common ground, not taking it out completely.--Marktreut (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The plot section is for a straightforward description of the story, not for interpretation or analysis of the character's motivations. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a time when I felt the same as you. When I was doing English at school we would read a book or short story and then the teacher and the other pupils would discuss the characters and their motivations. All this went over my head. For me a story was a story and you enjoyed it or hated it. Nowadays I feel different: motivation is what drives the story and character development makes it interesting. It is Keefer's motivations, the way he manipulated Maryk into questioning Queeg's sanity, which is the driving factor in this case. After all, we need some kind of explanation for why Greenwald saw Keefer as the real mutineer, the perjury issue being the least of his wrongdoings.--Marktreut (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad for you that you've come to a greater appreciation of literature. And I would agree that motivations are appropriate for inclusion in the article, provided that certainly exists as to what their motivation is. That certainty can come from many places, including an explanation by the writer himself or the analysis of reviewers of the work. But per WP:OR, it cannot come from we, the editors of Wikipedia.

Now, to be perfectly honest with you, often such things do come from editors, who make the same assumptions that you have made in this instance. And if no one contests those conclusions, they generally stick. But in this case, another editor has challenged your interpretation of events and motives, and accordingly, you must provide factual backing from another source. It's just the way it works here on Wikipedia, and once you come to understand that more fully, you'll better enjoy your experiences here on Wikipedia.

There was a time when I felt the same as you. When I first came to Wikipedia I would edit articles and then the other editors would criticize my edits as POV or OR. All this seemed absurd to me. For me a fact was a fact and you understood it or didn't. Nowadays I feel different; Wikipedia's policies are what drive this project and collaborating with other editors makes it interesting. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But the point is "that certainly exists as to what their motivation is". There is evidence in the film of the issues that we are arguing here ! Maryk tells both Keefer and Greenwald to forget the matter and given Maryk's character (he does what he thinks is best for everyone, not himself in particular) I believe that he genuinely means it. Greenwald describes him as "an honest man" and when Maryk tells Keefer that it is "over and done with" I think he means it. They may not be friends anymore, but Maryk does not come across as someone who bears a grudge.

As for Keefer's motives, Greenwald's criticisms of him are, I think, good enough. He hates the Navy and would rather get on with his writing: Queeg's by-the-book tough style of command, which leaves little in the way for free time and levity, contrasts very much with the easy-going nature of his predecessor.

I have read a few reviews of this firm, but none go into the detail of what pushes the characters. Most of them focus on Bogart's performance and little is given in the way of the supporting characters' drives and motives.

I think a little leeway and POV should be permitted, especially if there is no other source to explain a particular issue and if it is based on scenes from the film itself. If we are supposed be "collaborating with other editors" over this, could you please indicate how you would explain Maryk and Keefer's behaviour. If they are good enough I'll accept them, but I think we need something.--Marktreut (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with your interpretation of Maryk's motivation. I have always made the same assumption as Ed, namely, that he was both an officer and a gentleman, and sought to avoid sullying the occasion with an attack on Keefer. Furthermore, even if he never does plan to bring the matter up one-on-one with Keefer, he might still be upset with him, but not want to get into it. I'm less sure what I think about Keefer; I think that it's wrong for him to be labeled as intentionally malicious; I think he was sincere in his analysis of Queeg, but he's too self-preservationist to place himself at any kind of risk at all. He's rather pathetic, in my book. In any event, it doesn't matter at all what I think or what Ed thinks or what you think, Mark. We're all just engaged in OR, and that doesn't fly on Wiki; at least, not when other people are shooting skeet. Sorry. Unschool (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

the "real" mutiny

The plot summary doesn't mention the story's critical turning point, probably because most viewers are so intent on hating Queeg (the name itself is hateable) that they don't see it. It occurs during Queeg's initial meeting with the ship's officers, after the "Do it my way and we'll get along" suggestion. Queeg is aware he has trouble with command, and asks, almost directly, for help in running the ship. (I don't remember the exact dialog.) He's given the cold shoulder, because the officers have already decided they don't like him, and don't want to cooperate. This is the real mutiny, not Maryk's later assumption of command. The officers have forgotten they're fighting a war, and there are things far more important than whether they like their commanding officer. This is not OR interpretation; it is the obvious, on-the-surface intent of the dialog and the way the scene is acted/directed/edited.

There is also the question of why the ship is named Caine. I have my opinions, but they would be OR. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Racism in the Navy

The parenthetical that Navy stewards during World War II were generally, if not exclusively, black, and later generally Filipino, is technically correct, but is it relevant to this movie? I don't think so. Is there any other reason to mention it in this article? Lahaun (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mutiny?

When Queeg appears to become paralyzed in action, Maryk relieves him, with Keith's support. Upon returning to port, Maryk and Keith face a court-martial for mutiny.

Why is that? Relieving the captain is not a mutiny.80.141.24.11 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence isn't indicating that they committed mutiny, only that they are being charged with it. Just as one can be charged with murder without having committed murder. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Template war and peace

One possible solution is to crate a broader Kramer template listing both directing and producing credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. BMK (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done BMK (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary

I've made some WP:BOLD trims in the plot summary. I think it was going a bit overboard, not summarizing the plot but detailing it, and not only detailing it but providing a kind of "Wikipedia editors' commentary." For example, I've seen this movie a million times and I was surprised to learn from reading the plot summary that both Willie and DeVries were promoted by the end of the film. I was surprised because it's not mentioned in the movie, and only apparent if you freeze-frame the film and note the change in the number of stripes on each officers' sleeves. But it's not in the plot, if indeed mentioned it flits on by, and doesn't belong in a plot summary. Coretheapple (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually the promotion of both Keith and DeVriess is quite apparent and significant in the plot of the film even if it is not specifically "mentioned" in words. It indicates that Keith has not only had the charges of mutiny against him dismissed, he has also not had the incident held against him in any nonjudicial or unofficial way. This is evidenced by his being both promoted to LT(jg) and returned to sea duty, and also assigned to a higher class ship which is indicated by its captain being a CDR as opposed to a LCDR on a mine sweeper. I am surprised that someone who indicates he/she has seen the film many times would have never noticed and understood this significant element of the plot. I have seen the film many times as well beginning when it was first released in 1954. I both noticed the promotions and understood their significance the first time I saw it. Centpacrr (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What you're saying above deals with just a tiny portion of my edit to the plot summary, and does not justify your pushing the "undo" button and removing the entire trim, So I'm going to go back and revert that portion other than the promotion material in the last paragraph. Meanwhile, please explain to me how this promotion is disclosed to the audience. Simple question. I'll suggest an answer: is it because of the change in the number of stripes on the sleeve? If so, everything else you say is original research. Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, the promotions are disclosed to the audience by the change in uniforms of both Keith and DeVreiss which are made quite obvious in the final shots of the film. That is not "original research" as I have not added the "reasons" to the article, just explained in here what the filmmakers depicted and made plainly visible on screen, i.e., that they had both been promoted and were wearing their new ranks on their uniforms. Centpacrr (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

So then you concede it's just an alteration in the costume the characters wear? Fine. Let's see if other editors concur. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not a "concession", but is a statement of fact. I never pretended it was anything else. What Keith and DeVreiss are wearing are not "costumes", but US Navy Class A dress blue officer's uniforms with gold braid sleeve stripes designating the wearer's grade. The insignia of rank which appears on both of them are clearly seen and are well known as to their meaning. With respect, sir or madame, I truly do not know why you are making such an issue of this. I have explained in great detail above what it shows and why it is significant to the plot even though this is unspoken by the characters themselves. Not everything that is part of the plot of a film has to be "spoken" by somebody to be recognized, understood as significant, and appropriately included. Motion pictures are intended to be more than just listened to. They are primarily a visual art form and thus intended to watched with eyes open as well. That's why they are called "motion pictures".Centpacrr (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a plot summary, not a microscopically detailed depiction of everything happening in the film such as you might find on IMDB. In the novel there is much text devoted to what happens after the court martial. In the the movie very little, it wraps up fast, he goes on board the ship, they ship out, end of movie. There is no dialogue indicating that he has been promoted. He doesn't say, "May, I've been promoted, and gosh, I understand my old commander has too." Instead it's he just goes on board, sees his old commander, is startled, but the commander subtly shows no hard feelings, has him take out the ship. Yes, someone who has literally seen the movie since it first came out, as you have, might notice that both got promoted. But that doesn't make it a plot element worthy of inclusion in that already over-detailed plot summary. Coretheapple (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually for the reasons I explained above it does belong in the plot section. The promotions are significant to the understanding of the overall story as they represent the denouement of what happened to these two central characters that ties up everything else that happened in the story. Perhaps if you had read the book you would know that. Centpacrr (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, we can repeat ourselves two or three more times or bring some other editors into the conversation. Coretheapple (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If the promotions are only indicated by changes in the uniforms, and no other mention is made of them, then they are not significant in terms of the plot, as only a small, specialized portion of the audience will realize they have occurred by "reading" the uniforms. If they were important to the storyline, they would have been spoken of by somebody, pointing them out to the audience. BMK (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Again motion pictures is a visual as well as aural medium intended to communicate information both ways. Many plot elements in movies are revealed only one of the two ways (sight or sound), but that fact does not make them any more or less significant. Simply because something that is shown is not mentioned or explained by a character does not lessen its importance. Centpacrr (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, motion pictures are a visual medium, but the rules for presenting important information are no different for visual material than they are for dialogue. If the promotions were important to the story, they would be visually emphasised in some manner, so the audience could take them in as they watched the movie for the first and only time they would see it. Analysis of passing shots enabled by video technology is not an indication that the director or writer thought these things were important. In fact, the positions of the officers in the ship's hierarchy did not change at all because of their promotions (accepting for a moment your analysis), and that is what is important to the plot.

You are going to need to drop the stick on this, the consensus here is quite clear. BMK (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Concur with BMK. Whether they are promoted or not makes no difference to the plot by this point, and in any case it's OR synthesis to take a visual cue, combine it with information garnered from a source outside the movie, and then draw a conclusion the movie does not explicitly state. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you would have a better understanding of the plot if you were to read the book. Centpacrr (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have read the book, it sits across from my on my bookshelf even as I type this - but the book it not relevant to this discussion. Many details in novels are left out or glossed over when they're made into films - that's simply the nature of the beast, a 2 - 2 1/2 hour movie just cannot contain everything that's in a full-length novel, which is why writing a screenplay is not simply a matter of breaking down the book into shots and re-transcribing the book's dialogue. The writer has to actually pick and choose what to show, or make a single incident stand for several in the source material, or merge minor characters into one, or give up some background material that's too difficult to make sensible for the viewer. So, if the officers' promotions were important, you can be absolutely certain that the writers and the director would have made sure that the audience knew about it, not just by a passing change of uniform which is never highlighted out to the audience, but by having some bit of dialogue, or a closeup, or something to clue the audience in. They did not do that, and therefore it is incidental to the film's plot.

Please, you are making yourself look very, very foolish with this WP:IDHT behavior, and you need to stop. BMK (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The promotion is trivial and not worth mentioning. I've gotten the synopsis down to a reasonable length (again). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, Coreoftheapple, you leave me wondering if you have actually ever seen the film at all. Your edit summary stating "promotion of these officers visible in last few seconds of film evident only in freeze-frame analysis" is just not accurate. In the 0:01:51 portion of the film between 2:01:49 and 2:03:40, the stripe-and-a-half of Lt (jg) on Keith's sleeves is plainly visible for a total of 0:50 (45% of the time) in four continuous segments lasting 24, 3, 10 and 13 seconds. Between 2:02:35 and 2:02:54, the three stripes of Commander on DeVreiss' sleeve are also plainly visible for 0:13 in two continuous segments of 9 and 4 seconds. On what basis do you thus contend that this requires "freeze frame analysis" to recognize? Centpacrr (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Because you just performed one. As has been explained multiple times by multiple editors, it isn't mentioned in the dialogue and is trivia. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh my, do you really mean to contend that something clearly visible on the screen for almost a full minute during a less than two minute segment of a film has to be "freeze framed" to be seen and recognized? Really? Again, sir or madame, motion pictures communicate vast amounts of plot information only visually without ever being "mentioned in the dialogue". That's why they are called "motion pictures". You are confusing the necessity for something to be "mentioned in the dialogue" (or indicated by sound effects like a gun shot) to be considered a part of the plot with radio. The plot element being clearly communicated here by the filmmakers is that Keith has not only been exonerated of the mutiny charges and returned to duty, but also promoted. This could have also been mentioned in the dialogue, but the screenwriter chose not to as it was completely unnecessary because it is done adequately and far more efficiently simply by showing it. Having Keith state it in dialogue as well would have been unnatural for his character to do and superfluous.

As for visual plot elements take as an example, for instance, the 2013 Robert Redford film "All Is Lost", a winner of many awards including a Golden Globe and one from the New York Film Critics. It runs 105 minutes and certainly has a highly developed and definable plot. The one thing it does NOT have is anything "mentioned in the dialogue" because it has no dialogue. In "The Caine Mutiny" one of the key visual plot elements that is used to define the personality of Capt. Queeg are the two steel balls he is shown rolling in his right hand multiple times throughout the movie whenever he is under stress and yet the balls (but not what the signify) are mentioned only once in passing in the dialogue ("So he has migraine headaches and he rolls steel balls. So what?"). Does the fact that it is not "mentioned in the dialogue" that he is stressed every time he does so make him doing it just "trivia" too? Dialogue is only part of the "picture" when it comes to plot in movies, not the whole thing. See what I mean? Centpacrr (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What I "see" is that you are bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tendentiousness. The "steel balls" have been mentioned numerous times in articles about this movie and Bogart's performance; if such sourcing is lacking, it's a reflection of the poor state of this article's sourcing and not a justification for picking over every little irrelevancy that can be gleaned from careful and repeated study of the film. You keep bringing up the novel and badgering editors as to whether they've read it. I have indeed, but it wouldn't matter even if I hadn't. This is an article about the film, not the novel. It is not a depiction of a real event. I'm not going to repeat further what I have said multiple times. The consensus has been established and you really need to move on. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree on all these points, the most important of which is that consensus is established, and Centpacrr seriously needs to WP:DROPTEHSTICK. BMK (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In the hope of putting this issue to rest, I have requested additional input with a neutral pointer on the talk page of WikiProject Film. BMK (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The point I am disputing here is the contention that Coretheapple seems to be making that if something it "not mentioned in the dialogue" then it is by definition not important to the plot. My point is that since movies are primarily a visual medium much of what is significant in a plot is often not mentioned in dialogue, just shown on the screen. Centpacrr (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We are not holding a theoretical discussion. The purpose of this talk page is to provide a place to talk about improvements to or porblems with this article. The consensus here, at least so far, is that the promotions of the officers is not important to the plot of the film, as it is never mentioned, nor is it presented visually in any way that highlights it to the audience. If you wish to have a theoretical discussion concerning the role of visuals versus dialogue in sound motion pictures, you need to find some other place to do that, it is not appropriate to do so here. BMK (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the promotions are not important to the overall plot of the film. That said, the last sentence could always be changed to something along the lines of "With all charges dismissed, a newly-promoted Keith reports to a new ship commanded by DeVriess, who invites him "take her out", assuming we think it's safe to assume the promotion is new. DonIago (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with BMK. This article cries out for more sourcing on consequential stuff, not the trivia we're discussing here. Doniago, the facts conveyed by the last scene, the takeaway, is that Keith is surprised that his old adversary is now his boss again, and that DeVriess makes a friendly gesture. The promotion is not part of the plot. Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't intend to suggest otherwise, just offering a possible minimal word-count compromise for anyone who feels the promotion matters. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

My comments here have been exactly on those two points and giving my reasons why I find both of them faulty, i.e. the two promotions are presented visually for almost a full minute of screen time which certainly is sufficient to highlight them for the audience, and that being the case there is no need to also "mention them in the dialogue" as their having been promoted is clearly depicted on screen. The editorial question that arose then was whether or not the unambiguously true plot point that both Keith and DeVriess had been promoted is significant enough to the story line to include in the summary. I gave my reasons why I think it is worth mentioning. Keith's promotion constitutes a natural denouement resolving all of plot points relating to Keith's earlier issues, i.e., it confirms that he had not only been cleared of the charges of mutiny that had been made against him, but also that he was accepted back in the full the good graces of the Navy by being promoted, assigned back to sea duty, and finally being accepted as fit and trustworthy by (now CDR) DeVriess, his first commanding officer on the Caine with whom he had earlier clashed. Showing the promotions serves, in fact, as an overt message to the audience that all has ended well for both Keith and DeVriees. That's what I took from seeing the promotions when I first saw the film in 1954, and what I still take from it today. That's exactly what talk is for, and what I did. Centpacrr (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Responding to 6 lines of comments from others with 8 more of your own repeating your thesis once again is not "dropping the stick", it is continuing to pummel the horse carcass into a bloody mass of protoplasm. You really, really must stop, lest some passing admin with a short fuse takes your commentary for tendentious and disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This is merely a response to your contention that "..the promotions of the officers is not important to the plot of the film, as it is never mentioned, nor is it presented visually in any way that highlights it to the audience" and why I think both are wrong. Nothing about theory. Centpacrr (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, this us useless. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. Consensus has been determines, and there are no other issues. BMK (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am going to be a contrarian in that I am not sure the promotions as indicated by the new uniforms are "trivial" details. Sure, it isn't spelt out as it is in films nowadays but this film was made just ten years after WW2 when the population would have been much more familiar with naval uniforms than they are today. I am pretty sure 1950s audiences would have realized the significance of the uniforms: the new uniforms speak to the utlimate fates of the characters (i.e. that mutiny has not hindered or derailed their careers) and I don't think that's a trivial detail. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. You are the first editor who has actually addressed the significance of why the promotions depicted in almost a full minute of screen time (and thus not needing "freeze frame" to see them) were deliberately included by the screenwriter, director and producers as a non-verbal means to communicate the essential plot denouement that makes clear the resolution of the post-trial fates of Keith and DeVriees, points which all other commenting editors continue to ignore. Centpacrr (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Plot length

Regarding BMK's wholesale revert that violates WP:FILMPLOT: First, it is not "absolutely standard" to have actors' names in the plot. Countless films do not since it adds to word count and is redundant with cast. Second, you cannot go over 700 words. Finally, restore the names if you want, but we not revert legitimate edits wholesale. Other editors, would you weigh in before this blows up into yet another fight?--Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This happens with you all the time, and you always end up apologizing and trying to be friends. Just stop now, please.

First, MOS is a guideline, it is not mandatory, and 700 is not an absolute limit, it is a suggested length. Second, putting the actors' names in the plot helps the readers because they don't have to keep bouncing back and forth from the plot to the cast list in order to keep straight who is who. It is standard practice, and used on every single one of the hundreds of film articles I have edited.{parabr}}We are here to serve the readers, not to follow foolish rules without consideration. SO, before this becomes the bigger megillah you always turn it into, I beg you to just stop and consider the purpose of the encyclopedia - it is not to follow rules, but to provide information to our readers in a helpful way. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you do not seem to understand WP:BRD. You are not supposed to continue to revert the article to your preferred version. As discussion goes on, the article stays in the status quo ante until you have a consensus to make the changes you desire. In the meantime, please just stop reverting and leave the article be. If a consensus of editors agrees with you, then I'm not going to stand in your way, but I'm also not going to allow you to try to force your version in without consensus. Now, please stop, and discuss. BMK (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I truly want to be friendly with you since you're such a good editor, though as I've said in the past you have a bad temper. First, let me I take exception to your claim that I "always end up apologizing" since there have been times when my requests for proper citing of boundary claims at New York City articles, for instance, have resulted in your providing citations, which is right and proper and as I know you believe in when you're angry with me.

Second, the whole idea of guidelines is that we follow them except when there are exceptional circumstances. Otherwise, we're all free to break all the guidelines anytime we want. I've worked with editors of good faith at articles with such convoluted plots as the Mission: Impossible films, and as a group collaborated to show that even these can be encapsulated within 700 words. And I could link a hundred film articles that do not include the cast.

But look, I'm willing to do the grunt work of what is almost always just a matter of grammatically trimming wordiness (changing passive voice to active voice, adjusting phrases like "he then decided to go for a walk" to "he went for a walk", etc.). I'm happy to do that if you want to restore the names. But you copy-pasting the names back in is easier than forcing another editor to re-do a dozen minor nips and tucks that were done in good faith in an attempt to follow a guideline. What do you say? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand WP:BRD. The consensus of editors is that film plots be between 400 and 700 words. The onus is on editors who don't want to follow these consensus guidelines. Regardless, why don't we compromise as I suggest above: You restore the names and leave the other edits, and I'll make further trims to bring it down with the names intact. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. Link a hundred film articles in which a plot section of anything more than a paragraph doesn't include actors the actors playing characters. I don;t think it's possible.

But I will take you up on your offer. I will restore your edits, and then manually restore the names, if you will not then revert my restoration. BMK (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Than you. I appreciate that. In the meantime, to start, since you asked: Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (672), Titanic (1997 film) (682). --Tenebrae (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

We did it! You and I working together have brought it to 700 words exactly, including actors' names. I like working together so much better than fighting. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Glad everything worked out. I just wanted to mention that it's useful in plot summaries with multiple characters to have the actors' names attached. I'm glad the summary is now compliant with our guidelines. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

• I've tagged for sources. This movie has been written about a fair amount and the sourcing (ebay? tcm? imdb?) needs improvement. We can get this mother up to GA I am sure. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I disagree. The sourcing is more than adequate for a film article. If there are particular items which you think should be sourdced, please tag them with CN, but the article as a whole is well-sourced. AFI, in particular, is quite reliable, as is TCM, and e-bay has been removed. BMK (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but we can do a lot better. It's just a question of finding the time, really. Lots out there. It may be acceptable to use, for instance, Robert Osborne's comments on a film, though I tend to think it presents WP:V problems, but probably better to find published work and more easily verifiable material. IMDB has been challenged repeatedly, I know that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Treating fiction as real events

I notice that we have two notes in the article, one of which relates to a real-life typhoon and the other to the Queeg in the novel and how that fictional character is much younger than the actor playing him in the movie. The fictional character in the movie is older too. So friggin what? As for the typhoon, it is not named in the movie. It is a fictional typhoon. This movie is a work of fiction and in my view these notes simply don't belong here unless there is source for it. In which case, fine. The physical descriptions of the characters in the novel are different too, and "May" is portrayed as Italian in the novel. Are we going to get into that too? We are Wikipedia editors, not film critics. This is not IMDB. This is original research and should go, in my view. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• With respect, sir or madame, this in not "original research", but material that is very well sourced and properly cited. To begin with, the typhoon is absolutely not fictional. It was in fact known as "Halsey's Typhoon" and was one of the most well documented (the subject of several books) and devastating natural disasters ever suffered by the US Navy in WWII or any other time in the history of that service resulting in the complete loss of three ships and 776 crewmen. If you consult the movie this particular storm is referred to directly in the dialogue when Maryk, Keefer and Keith decide to not talk to ADM Halsey and return to the Caine. As they do so they are told by a Halsey aide to "Hurry back. We received a storm warning and the fleet's sailing." The storm being referred to is Typhoon Cobra that raged east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea (which is where the Caine was at the time) between December 14 and 19, 1944. Three destroyers in the Task force of which the Caine was a part in the film (TF-38) foundered and 28 other ships were badly damaged and put out of action until repaired.

As for the age of Capt. Queeg's character and it being played by a 54-year old Humphrey Bogart, this was a matter of considerable discussion at the time the film was produced -- especially when Kramer insisted that Bogart be cast instead of the 15-year younger Richard Widmark (age 39 at the time) that Columbia wanted for the part. That is why I added this to the section of the article on production. A 54-year old Lt. Commander in the regular Navy (as opposed to a reserve officer in a non sea duty billet) simply would not have happened in WWII or any other time. An officer of that age who was still on active duty would either by an O-6 or flag rank, not an O-4. The fact that an actor 25 years senior to what Queeg would have logically been (and Wouk made him in the book) is an absolutely relevant and well sourced piece of information to be included as a note in the "production" section of the article.

As for this being a "fictional" story and film that is only partly true. The Caine and the "mutiny" were indeed fictional, but WWII and the actions depicted in the film certainly were not. The genre of Wouk's book and of this film based on it are, in fact both, what is known as historical fiction which sets a fictional story in an identifiable factual period and context with many non-fictional elements. This is why the Navy assigned a senior line officer, CDR James C. Shaw, USN, to Columbia to be a full time technical advisor during the film's preparation and production over a period of over two years. That being the case, the verifiable and properly sourced fact the three destroyers of the class of the fictional Caine actually foundered in the Halsey Typhoon is relevant information to include as a note in the plot section as whether or not Maryk was justified in relieving Queeg because of his failure to employ proper ship handling in this historic typhoon thus endangering the Caine is a central plot element.

Although under WP policy and guidelines I could have properly included these two relevant items of information in the text of the main article, I have done so as notes purely for space considerations. Just because a single editor does not find this information of particular interest to him or herself, however, does not mean that they are of no interest to others as they both provide relevant background information to help those who read the article to better understand and appreciate both historically accurate elements of the plot (the typhoon), and also what happened during the 15 months of casting and pre-production work (the controversy over casting the 54-year old Bogart instead of the 39-year old Widmark or another younger actor as the film's protagonist).

With respect, Coreoftheapple, WP is not written only to appeal to the "lowest common denominator" of readers. If you are not interested in this material you are perfectly free to ignore it. That does not mean, however, that there are not many readers who would find its inclusion to be both enlightening and encyclopedically appropriate in advancing the mission of the Wiklipedia Project. Centpacrr (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you please get a grip? If you continue with these personal attacks and wall-o-text rants I'm going to bring this up at ANI. Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• What "personal attack" are you possibly referring to? What I posted above was nothing more than a detailed explaintion of why the two notes I contributed provide relevant and appropriate information and conform with WP policy and guidelines. Simply because any one editor disagrees with the position of another and explains why does not constitute a "rant" or "personal attack" or anything close to it. I did not accuse anyone of doing anything improper, cast any aspersions on anybody else, nor have I failed to assume good faith on the part of anybody in this or any other thread I have commented on in the talk page. Again with respect, sir or madame, under these circumstances telling a fellow volunteer contributor "get a grip" and threatening "to bring this up at ANI" is neither appropriate nor is it a collegial way in which to interact with fellow editors. Centpacrr (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Do the sources provided reference the film? If not, and if these notes are being provided as "points of historical interest", then I might instead recommend WP:SEEALSO links to the appropriate articles, though I'd like to hear what other editors have to say on the subject. DonIago (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doniago: Ah, good question. The novel, of course, does not reference the casting. However, the typhoon book does reference the book and movie on p. 286, according to an Amazon search, and that can be retained if the page number is added to the text. Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Have added, but that leaves the other note and it is problematic. Coretheapple (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes they do. Herman Wouk writes in the introduction to the book that much of what is included in the story (and shows up in the film) such as Typhoon Cobra is non-fictional material which he drew from extensive diaries he kept while serving as an officer (including as an XO) on two converted destroyer-minesweepers (USS Zane (DD-337) and USS Southard (DD-207)) of the same class as the Caine in the South Pacific during WWII. The material about the casting of the 54-year old Bogart to play a much younger man comes from a variety of cited contemporary sources including the New York Times and TIME Magazine. Centpacrr (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Then fine, all it needs is sourcing. The problem is not that we're talking about these things but that they're not footnoted. If I had felt it was horrible stuff that didn't belong in the article, I'd have removed and then posted here. It's just that we can't put our own analysis into the article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If you are now saying that "The problem is not that we're talking about these things.." and that my contributions do not constitute "...horrible stuff that didn't belong in the article...", than why did you say "So friggin what?" about the two notes in your original post? These seem to me to be diametrically opposed positions. Centpacrr (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What I am now saying is that I'm not going to waste any more time responding to you. Coretheapple (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well, Coretheapple, you are of course free to not respond further if that is your want. Please understand, however, when any editor starts a thread in a talk page (as you did here), that act implies an affirmative expectation that other contributors who have an interest in the topic -- especially if the original posting relates to something such a responding editor did to the article in question -- are going to respond. That's all I did in this case by providing a detailed explanation of why I had added what I did in the article.

Any editor is, of course, free to disagree with what any other contributors comment, and to then provide his or her reasons therefore. That's what "talk" is for. It is unhelpful to the process of building the project, however, to instead reply only with gratuitous invective, unsupported accusations of "personal attacks" and "wall-o-text rants" (whatever those are) when none of that is present, and then to threaten to "bring this to ANI", all of which is against the letter and spirit of WP policy and guidelines. With respect then, Coreoftheapple, if you don't think you can do that, I urge you to (in your own words) "get a grip", take a "Wikibreak", or if necessary to find a different hobby that will be less stressful and more rewarding for you. Remember Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative project with no "Editors-in-Chief". Please don't try to be one. Centpacrr (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Footnote Two: Queeg's age (Bogie vs. film vs. novel)

This is a pretty good analysis and synthesis of published material, describing how Bogie is older than is portrayed in the film screenplay and novel. Only one problem: it is by a Wikipedia editor, and thus is a no-no under WP:SYN. I think the text of the footnote has to go in all or in part, and also I think that we need to rethink the language in the main text referencing Queeg's age. Thoughts? Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Truly, sir or madame, I am puzzled about what your issue is here. I added this "Note" to the article to provide efficient access to the extensive supporting source material that elucidates and confirms that there is a large disparity (25 years) between the actual age of Bogart the actor compared to that of Queeg, the character he played, as revealed in both the original Wouk novel and in the text of the screenplay. This statement in the article and in the Note is extensively sourced with half a dozen footnotes (#s 6 through 11) citing published material from multiple reliable sources including direct quotes from the texts of both the novel and screenplay that confirm what those sources say.

The fact that Kramer and the studio selected a particular high profile actor who at 54 was almost twice as old as the character he plays instead of a less prominent one who was about 30 (the Queeg character's documented age) is certainly significant information and encyclopedically justified to include in the casting section of the article. The very same kind of information is also included on the WP entry about the film The Spirit of St. Louis when the 25-year old Charles Lindbergh was played by a 47-year old Jimmy Stewart. The reasons that the ages of none of the other actors in the film are discussed is because they are all age appropriate for the characters they portray and so that is not relevant. The material in the text and associated note about the Bogart/Queeg disparity is demonstrably relevant, however, as well as accurate, appropriately and reliably sourced, and also not a case of WP:SYN. Centpacrr (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In the Spirit of St. Louis film, which is about a real, I repeat, real person, Charles Lindbergh, the difference between the age of the actor Jimmy Stewart and the real person he portrayed was noted by reviewers and there isn't a speck of OR or SYN in the Wiki article on that movie. See [1] I'm beginning to wonder not only if you have trouble distinguishing OR from non-OR content, which is obvious, but can distinguish real from fictional characters. Fictional characters only exist when they appear on screen or in the novel. They are, by definition, neither "too old" or "too young." We cannot make a fuss about any discrepancy in ages unless the source material does. And by "source material" I don't mean "the dialogue shows a graduation from Annapolis in Year X and that means A, B and C when contrasted with the lines in the novel on page X." That is, uh, the textbook definition of "original research." I mean the source material saying "Queeg in the movie is much older than is portrayed in the novel." OK? The source material saying that, not you saying that. You can now respond with another wall-o-text, but I think this needs to be addressed by editors other than you. Coretheapple (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• When works of fiction provide information that clearly defines a character—including his or her age or age range—as both the novel and screenplay do in this case, than that affirmatively establishes what the author(s) intend should be understood and accepted as contextually true about that character irrespective of whether he or she is real or fictional. This is exactly what the direct quotations from both the book and movie's screenplay that I cited in the note do that supports the age range intended by the authors of both the novel and screenplay derived from it for the Queeg character when he takes command of the Caine in November, 1943 as being 28 to 34. Citing verbatim quotations is not "original research" but simply accurate transcriptions of the author's words that established Queeg's age range, not my words. As the quotations from both the novel and screenplay are also consistent with each other, they do not require any "analysis" or "interpretation" to clearly understand what they mean. In such a case as this, when an actor is then chosen to portray an already age range defined character in a film or play—even if that character is fictional as opposed to real—is either much older or younger than the person he or she is playing, that is certainly significant and appropriate information to include in a WP entry about the film. And again for emphasis, when a character's age or age range has been affirmatively established by the author(s) as a known element of the story it then becomes irrelevant whether or not that character is fictional or real.
• I have already addressed above whether or not it is appropriate for anyone to suggest that any other editor not post his or her comments in a thread in talk or any other WP forum, and especially commenting about issues raised about something in which an editor has a direct interest. Neither I nor any other contributor should ever be expected to arbitrarily remain silent on such an issue, and it is really quite inappropriate and against WP policy to suggest such. Again there are no "Editors in Chief" in Wikipedia so please stop trying to act as if you are one. Centpacrr (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there are circumstances where major changes made to a character's, um, characteristics between the source material and the film made from it can be relevant -- if properly sourced, of course. If a male or female character has their gender changed, that's significant, if a character who is supposed to be a child is played by an adult, that might be signififcant, depending on the circumstances - for instances, Judy Garland was much older than Dorothy in the stories, but a concerted effort was made for her to "play down" to the younger age, so a brief mention of the age differential is warranted; on the other hand Peter Pan, a boy, is traditionally played by an adult woman, and that is very significant and deserves (sourced) analysis.

However, when we come to a situation where an adult male is played by an adult male -- even when there is a 25-year difference -- I think we've entered the realm of fan trivia. If anything is required, a simple statement saying "At the time of production, Bogart was several decades older than the character as portrayed in Wouk's novel" is the very most that is needed - anything more is, frankly, WP:OR. If the director or producer is on record as saying "We cast Bogie in the role despite the age difference because we felt he was the best actor we could possible have", or words to that effect, fine, that (if sourced) can go in as well. Or if the casting of a much older actor contributed to a lack of believability by the audience, which lead to the film not being successful that (again, only if sourced) is legitimate materal. (Remember, though, that audiences are quite willing to suspend their disbelief - look at the Americans, Brits and French people Cary Grant played without changing his manner of speaking one whit.)

An encyclopedia is not an exercise in editorial exploration, interpretation or analysis, it's a presentation of sourced, verifiable facts, and going beyond that is going beyond our mandate. That kind of stuff is appropriate for a fan Wikia or a blog, but not for Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I was asked to comment as a disinterested third-party editor since I've edited this article previously, and was doing so at the same time of the above editor so there was an edit conflict. I didn't know he was posting, and I am simply copy-pasting what I'd already written. By coincidence, we agree:

I don't believe the article should get into a discussion of the actor's age in the movie as opposed to in the book or to any supposed real-life character. Are we really going to do that with the ages of the actors of every fictional work that may be based on some aspect or another of real life? Bette Midler played a character apparently based on Janis Joplin in the fictional movie The Rose — so are we going to have a section there comparing Midler's age with Joplin's? That just seems way overboard, pardon the expression. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: @Tenebrae: Actually I should amend my post by noting that the other footnote, re the typhoon, also contain unacceptable amounts of OR and trivia. We can say that a certain 1944 typhoon was portrayed in the film. Fine. That's sourced. But all the rest, naming this destroyer and that destroyer, is fancruft/trivia and OR in my opinion. I'd appreciate it if editors could take a look at that other footnote too. Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have decided to remove both of my notes and, in an abundance of caution, all my other recent text contributions, references, new images, and test edits which may also be objected to for whatever reason and returned the article to its status quo ante. This was not a totally lost exercise for me, however, as I personally have learned a lot of new information about the production and other aspects of this film that I have watched many times since it came out in 1954 and had intended to share this with others who may be interested as well. (It has inspired me to read the original novel again too which I last read in 1966.) Centpacrr (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• You reverted back to some arbitrary point in January or February or Lord knows where, back dozens or hundreds of edits, reverting not just your edits but those of others. You're being disruptive. Please stop. Coretheapple (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well you seem to have restored virtually all of my contributions, quotations, references, and images with the exception of the two notes and Bogart's out of range age so I guess they weren't really OR after all. (You see I can be succinct. ;) )Centpacrr (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• No, the mega-footnotes are gone. No one objected to anything else. However, I see that you expanded the plot summary and in so doing went against consensus by reinserting a reference to the ensign's promotion, and that's been reverted by another editor. Coretheapple (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well actually after you prematurely claimed that consensus had been achieved (it really hadn't) after only one day of discussion, support was posted by another editor (Betty Logan) to include the reference to the promotion of Keith for the same reasons I gave, i.e., contrary to the demonstrably false claim that the promotion from Ensign to Lt (jg) could only be seen in "freeze frame", it was clearly and intentionally depicted in the film by showing the new stripe-and-a-half on the sleeves of Keith's uniform for fifty seconds of screen time representing 45% of the final less than two minute closing segment of the film. Next time you watch the movie (assuming that you ever have), just bring along a stop watch and time the four continuous segments lasting 24, 3, 10 and 13 seconds respectively that his new rank is shown. The "reinsertion" of the reference, by the way, took up exactly one word ("promoted") to accomplish. Considering it is something that is clearly shown in the film and it constitutes a material change in status of Willie Keith, continuing to object to including this single eight-letter word really seems a bit petty. Centpacrr (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Totally ridiculous conversation. Done with it. Coretheapple (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• No reply was really anticipated or necessary. Qui tacet consentire videt ubi loqui debuit ac potuitur. Centpacrr (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Centpaccr: Your action was extremely disruptive, as well as being immensely childish. If you do something like that again, you'll find yourself being reported to the noticeboards, so I'd advise you to keep a level head on your shoulders from now on, and don't fixate on trivial aspects of an article, especially in the face of almost universal disagreement. BMK (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• With respect, sir, it would probably be more constructive if you (and Coretheapple) would actually address the points that I raise on their merits as opposed to simply gainsaying, failing to address them, or just "hanging up". What you call "trivia" I see as relevant details (and explained why both in here and in my notes) which I contribute because I believe they enhance the understanding of the topic being discussed. What I add I always endeavor to well source and cite reliable and verifiable references to support. A perfect example of this is the promotion of Keith from ESN to LT (JG) at the end of the film, how it is communicated to the audience, and why it is a significant plot element. (see above).
• I must observe that your comments to me would carry more weight if your demonstrated approach to the project, editing entries, and postings in its forums as revealed by your user logs did not show that you have been disciplined and blocked from editing on at least eight occasions under your current account for multiple policy violations, tendentious and disruptive editing, uncollegial behavior, and other misconduct. I note that you admit in your "Backstory" posted on your userpage that the two earlier accounts you operated under between 2005 and 2010 had also been blocked as well for similar reasons but there is no way to tell how many times. (On the other hand, I have been blocked only once—for 24 hours in 2009—which the admin later advised me was unjustified and had been done in error.) As for what you claim to be "almost universal disagreement" with my contributions seems to be primarily just two editors -- you and Coretheapple -- which does not strike me as meeting anyone's definition of "universality".
• We are all in here (at least I am) to contribute information and knowledge in our areas of interest for the benefit of those who consult the project and that's what I have been doing to the best of my ability since registering and beginning to edit here almost a decade ago. I have been a professional writer for almost half a century and am the author of seven published books (and contributed material to many others), appeared in a number of historical documentaries (including one on HBO), and have also authored many hundreds of published articles. I do take what I do here seriously and assume good faith on the part of my fellow volunteer contributors to the project. I would appreciate if you would do the same. Centpacrr (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Another footnote on trivia, military abbreviations, WP:NOTGALLERY

Also the super-lengthy footnotes on minor bits of trivia (e.g. one minor character says "ninety-day wonder" and so naturally that has to go into the plot summary with a footnote that goes on and on and on and on) have got to stop. Ditto the military abbreviations like "OOD" that are completely unnecessary for plot summaries. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• While movies are copyrighted, trailers are not as you will see in the images' host pages.
• The only reason that Keith was charged along with Maryk is because he was the OOD at the time Queeg was relieved and told Stillwell to follow Maryk's orders over Queeg's. If another officer had been OOD than he would have been charged instead of Keith.
• The fact the Keith was a "ninety day wonder" is also an important plot element because it showed he was very inexperienced compared to De Vriess, Queeg, Maryk and Keefer which is a major factor in the story. I only included the note that shows that "ninety day wonder" is said by "Meatball" in the dialogue is to blunt another one of your complaints that it can't be included in the plot because it isn't in the screenplay. You can't have it both ways.
• Nothing that I have contributed is untrue, unsourced, or not relevant. You apparently just find it of no personal interest to you. That does not mean, however, it is not of interest to others. Again please stop trying to act an "Editor in Chief" of this article or asserting "ownership". Centpacrr (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• 1. The precise reason under military law why Keith, a fictional character, was charged, and his being a "ninety-day wonder," is absolute trivia and fancruft. Your fixation on trivia has got to stop. You are wasting people's time with that crap. 2. Your image files provide no links to any trailer; the only one I see online does not have the images you uploaded. 3. There are too many even if the copyright is OK. 4. As you have before, you have a bad habit of rolling back many edits and providing a misleading edit summary. In this case you reinstated the superlong footnote and military abbreviations without explanation while your edit summary only covered the photos. You really need to stop these stunts. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• An identical scene of Queeg taking command of the Caine appears a 0:10 of the trailer, and of Queeg, Maryk and Stillwell on the bridge during the typhoon at 0:50. Motion pictures are a visual art form, thus including "pictures" that illustrate key elements of the plot is therefore more than appropriate. There are also TWO different Caine Mutiny trailers on YouTube. The one I am referring to is located at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MeErathhsg.
• All of the rank abbreviations were wikilinked.
• You have not addressed the plot significance of Keith being a "ninety-day wonder" which is in fact the subject of the very first scene of the film! The three month (90 day) period of training being only the beginning of their necessary ongoing education to be effective Naval officers—the central element of the development of Keith's character over the course of the film—is the exact topic of the film's establishing remarks made by the Admiral at the commissioning ceremony to Keith and his fellow Midshipman's School graduates: "And so today you are full-fledged Ensigns. Three short months ago you assembled here from all parts of the nation, all walks of life -- field, factory, office and college campus. Each of you knew what the fighting was about or you wouldn't have volunteered. Each of you knew that the American way of life must be defended by life itself. From here on, your education must continue in the more demanding school of actual war. Wearing the gold stripe of Ensign in the United States Navy, you go down to the sea to fight in the toughest conflict of all time. Your fellow Americans carry my confidence that you will serve the Navy and the country with honor and distinction. Good luck and good hunting." Keith's being a "ninety-day wonder" is thus certainly not trivia or "funcraft" (whatever that is), but an important and essential plot element as it relates to how he behaves throughout the film and responds to the challenges he faces compared to the far more experienced officers (De Vriess, Queeg, Maryk and Keefer) he serves with. (A similar such relevant plot element would be the development of the character of Sub-Lieutenant (later Lieutenant-Commander) Keith Lockhart RNVR in the 1953 British WWII Royal Navy film The Cruel Sea from fresh midshipman school ("King Alfred") graduate to experienced Naval officer.) So instead of again just blowing this point off, please specifically address why you apparently disagree as to its significance as a plot element. (And again Keith being a fictional character with regard as to why he was charged along with Maryk as opposed to Keefer or somebody (or nobody) else, and his being a "ninety-day wonder" is completely irrelevant as to whether or not these elements should be included in the plot summary. If this were to be used as a criteria what to include, then the entire plot section would be blank because everything in it is "fictional".) Centpacrr (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no plot significance to the term "90-day wonder." As you yourself point out, it is mentioned once, by a minor character, in passing. That doesn't even establish that he was a 90-day wonder. It's enough to say that he's new. So enough on that bit of trivia. Contrast that with Article 184, to which you've added another lengthy footnote. While I think the footnote is overkill, since there is a link to the regulation that I added, that is an important, indeed crucial plot point. The whole film hinges on it.

I'm not going to waste any more time explaining this to you. You are deep into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory on your latest obsession as with all the others. Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Again after opening this thread to raise this particular issue, for whatever reason you have yet again decided to not address the question you posed, i.e., why you claim that Keith's being a "ninety-day wonder" (which both the opening scene and "Meatball's" remark proves his character is) is not significant to the plot. As you do not endeavor to refute anything I have explained in detail above either, I have to assume either that you have nothing with which to do so or that you did not even bother to read my reasoning as you make no reference to it at all.
• Again Keith's being a "nine-day wonder" is not only mentioned specifically in the screenplay, but his being the recent graduate of a wartime three month (90 day) Midshipman school is the specific purpose of the entire opening scene from the movie, is the specific topic of the extensive remarks made by the graduation speaker (which I have included above in its entirety for your convenience), and is what clearly establishes the status of Keith being an inexperienced, just commissioned reserve Naval officer three months removed from having been a civilian, i.e., the exact and classic definition of a nascent, just minted "ninety-day wonder".
• An editor just saying "no it isn't" and nothing else isnot an "argument" or an "explanation", it's just Pythonesque gainsaying and only a statement of one's individual, personal opinion unsupported by anything else. With respect that's just not how discussions on WP work. Without support, justification or at least some reasoning presented it means nothing.
• And as you again say "I'm not going to waste any more time explaining this to you" (i.e., yet another "hang up") when you still haven't "explained" anything at all, I have to accept that you have no "explanation" for your position. Centpacrr (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The new images added to the article

There have been three new images added to the article. While copyright isn't a problem here (in the case of images taken from the trailer presuming the trailer does not carry a copyright notice) I think the article is now becoming overloaded with images. Images ultimately should not be decorative, they should enhance a reader's understanding of the text. For that reason I find it difficult to foresee why we would ever need a screencap in the plot summary.

In the case of the other images, I simply think there are too many. Each section in this article is relatively short, and as such this number of images ruins the aesthetics. There are currently three images in the casting section and it now looks cluttered. If you want to add images of the principal cast I suggest using a gallery approach similar to the one at Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)#Cast which achieves the same objective in a tidier fashion. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• These are not actually "new" images, but the restoration of three images previously existing in the article two of which were being challenged as being "unfree" (they have proved to be demonstrably PD, see below), and the other just removed this morning by another editor.

The single image in the "plot" section is both relevant and significantly enhances the readers' understanding as it essentially serves as the "title" image for the entire movie by representing and clearly depicting the exact moment and circumstances of what actually constitutes the "mutiny" about which the rest of the entire plot revolves. It seems to me that a single image in this section that succinctly illustrates this pivotal element of the plot is neither "decorative" nor does it "ruin the aesthetics" (whatever that highly subjective contention is supposed to mean) of the page, but is instead both absolutely central and relevant to the plot, and enhances the reader's understanding of exactly how the "mutiny" took place. I do not in any way see how this disrupts the flow of this section of the article, and am not aware of any WP policy prohibition to include demonstrative images in the plot sections of motion picture entries.

As for the image of the "change of command" restored to the casting section, it is the only available free image that shows not only Bogart (the casting of whom is the subject of the paragraph in which it is placed), but also three of the film's other four top billed players (MacMurray, Francis, and Johnson) cast for leading rôles together in the film together in a single frame. The existing image of the June 7, 1954 TIME Magazine cover depicts and enhances the understanding of the significance of Bogart's appearance on the cover of this iconic magazine (the only time he ever did so) and how it relates to the film. The other existing image of José Ferrer shows how he, the fifth and final top billed actor cast in the film appears as he plays the pivotal rôle of Lt. Greenwald, Maryk's defense counsel in the Court Martial that concludes the picture.

The third and final so-called "new" image under discussion which was restored to the "Navy involvement" section depicts Headquarters Building at US Naval Station, Treasure Island, the then headquarters of the Twelfth Naval District in San Francisco. The location of the Court Martial, next to the USS Caine more action takes place here than anywhere else in the film. This is also an unquestionably "free" image as as it is a photograph that I took myself.

As for the PD status of the "mutiny image" in the plot section and the "change of command image in the casting section, both are demonstrably derived from image frames in one of the several uncopyrighted 1954 trailers for the film and are thus fully compliant for use in the WP main space as "free" images under the terms discussed and resolved nine years ago at WikiProject-Film Talk Archive #12 (§10): "Free Images for Films" (April, 2007), and also explained HERE.

Finally let me observe that the central essence of all of the many thousands of "motion pictures" that are the subject of WikiProject-Films entries is pictures, and thus nothing is better suited to "enhance the understanding" of key elements of this important visual art form than "pictures" themselves. Centpacrr (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually the two "Queeg" images are listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 14. But they are in fact too crowded as Betty Logan points out, and that is the primary reason they don't belong here. The crowding of images in the article is simply excessive. The building photo is particularly excessive and UNDUE. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Once again, Coretheapple, you have chosen to completely ignore the issues I have raised and resort instead to gainsaying your unsupported claim of community consensus for your personal view when no such consensus has been reached. With respect you really need to stop beating the dead horse that the Queeg "A" and "B" images are "unfree" by ignoring longstanding WP consensus and policy, and the provisions of US Copyright law (Title 17 USC), that puts any images published in uncopyrighted pre-1978 trailers in the Public Domain irrespective of where they may subsequently be published or appear. Your listing of them as "possibly unfree" has received no support (not even from Betty Logan) whatsoever in the discussion threads for either including from two sysops who have commented that they manifestly are in the Public Domain as determined nine years ago for the WikiProject-Film at WikiProject-Film Talk Archive #12 (§10): "Free Images for Films" (April, 2007) and as also confirmed and explained HERE. The frames from which these two images are derived are clearly included in one of the several uncopyrighted 1954 Caine trailers as is shown HERE for "Queeg A" and HERE for "Queeg B". With respect, sir or madame, your continuing to insist that they are "unfree" in the light of the above is becoming both petty and disruptive.

I am also constrained to observe that the vague pretension that images should not be included on WP because they "ruin the aesthetics" of articles seems to me to be an absolute red herring as it is a totally subjective and undefined personal assertion unsupported by any WP policy or community consensus. However as a compromise I am accepting Betty Logan's suggestion made above and moving ALL the images in the article to a gallery at the end in order to avoid any possible "damage" to the "aesthetics" of the overall entry even though this leaves the article itself as total "grey space" with no discernible aesthetic value at all. Placing them in a gallery makes these few included images that are all relevant to, and illustrative of, the film and its production both available to any readers who wish to view and take advantage of what they provide to enhance their understanding of the topic while also, by being grouped together at the end of the entry, also easily ignorable by those who do not wish to avail themselves of what they provide.

I trust that this compromise suggested by Betty Logan will be acceptable to all and will not result in yet another assertion of article ownership and/or "editor in chief" status by the OP of the unsustained claim that the not copyright protected trailer images are "unfree". Centpacrr (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Betty was suggesting the image gallery to illustrate the cast. But what you've done is to completely make a muck of the layout of this article. Instead of images judiciously employed at relevant parts of the article, you've removed them completely and shoved unrelated images into a separate section, totally contrary to WP:IG. Discussing this with you is hopeless, as usual, so I'll wait for input from non-Cenpacrr editors after you've disgorged your usual wall-o-text. Let 'er rip! Coretheapple (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Apparently there is no pleasing you I guess. When I added these five images (all of which I had contributed to WP) within the text of the article, I am told doing so "ruins" its "aesthetics" (whatever that highly subjective contention is supposed to mean). Now when I make another good faith attempt to try to assuage you over this issue by putting the five images together in a group at the end of the article, you complain that I really shouldn't have moved them from where I had originally put them which you previously claimed to be aesthetically damaging, but now say was actually "judicious" placement. How is one supposed know which one of these two diametrically conflicting positions you actually mean?

An image gallery in the cast section such as in the GWTW article would not really work here as there are only two suitable PD Caine cast images from the film available from the trailer (at least you are apparently no longer challenging that they are indeed "free" which is progress), one of which has four of the five top billed players (MacMurray, Bogart, Francis and Johnson) in it and the other just one (Ferrer). I would of course sooner have the five images back where I placed them within the article originally instead of in a group. So please let us know which you prefer: my original "judiciously employed" placement of the five images I contributed "at relevant parts of the article", or grouped together at the end? There is no way to do both, and with respect this should really not be such a big deal. Centpacrr (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate to other editors what their choices are. The five images were excessive for the reasons that were explained to you by two editors. The gallery is absurd. Your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics are wearisome and have to stop. Again, you are a wall-o-text of time-wasting and I am done with attempting to reason with you. Coretheapple (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• For once, sir or madame, you have said something with which I think we all can agree: "You don't get to dictate to other editors what their choices are." Unfortunately, Coretheapple, that is exactly what you have been doing here all along by attempting to control and/or overrule (i.e. "own") the contributions made to this article by everybody else based on you own personal views and ignoring the comments and positions of anyone who disagrees with you. I was not trying to "dictate" what you do here, only asking you which of the two diametrically opposed positions you have espoused you actually mean. Your view of how "community consensus" is achieved ignores that it is a process, not just an "I disagree and I'm taking your contribution out because I don't like it."

Again there are no "editors-in-chief" on Wikipedia. To edit and grow the project effectively involves collegiality and compromise. With respect, this is something which you seem incapable of ever doing. I have compromised with you on a large number of my edits and contributions to the text of this article in the plot section of this article such as the use of Navy ranks for the characters; the significance of the promotion of Keith from Ensign to Lt (jg) as clearly depicted in over half of the screentime of the closing scene of the film; the inclusion of the well established term "ninety day wonder" as a description establishing who Keith is as a character which is the subject of the entire first scene of the film, the text of the Admiral's entire graduation speech ("three short months ago you came here for all walks of life"), and even a deliberate inclusion of the term by the screenwriter in the script to describe him; the inclusion of several explanatory notes in the reference section; and a number of other similar instances and examples. I have compromised in these even though I still believe that my arguments for their inclusion (none of which you ever bothered to specifically address on their merits) are sound and well supported by WP practice and policy.

The gallery, as I stated above, is certainly not my first choice and I would much sooner return the five images where I had placed them originally. (And even here I have compromised again with you by not restoring the image of the Naval Station Treasure Island.) For the reasons I stated above (but will not repeat here), I believe that the two PD images from the 1954 trailer are relevant, illustrative, help enhance the reader's understanding of the film's plot and casting, are supported by the text of the article, and that five images in an article of this length is not in any way "excessive" or damaging to its "aesthetics", a highly subjective claim which you have still not explained. However as you have indicated that you again intend to "hang up" on this thread instead of actually addressing the issues raised, I guess we'll never know the basis of your reasoning (if any) on these issues or anything else. Centpacrr (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• As requested, I have removed the gallery and restored the five images to the text where they were adjudged by the complainant about the gallery to have been "judiciously employed at relevant parts of the article". There is one thumb image in "Plot" section (illustrating the exact moment of the "mutiny"), two in "Casting and director" (the grouping of Bogart, MacMurray, Johnson and Francis; Ferrer as Greenwald), one in "Navy involvement" (USS Thompson), one in "Reception" (Bogart as Queeg on the cover of TIME), and none in any of the other eleven sections. Each image is relevant and enhances the understanding of the text where it is located in the entry. For a 4,250+ word article this hardly seems "excessive", is not out of character for similar WP film articles, and does not it in any way "ruin its aesthetics" of the entry. Centpacrr (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of materials claimed to be "extraneous", "unnecessary", "inadequately sourced" and/or "fancraft" originally contributed by myself

In order to avoid any further conflicts with the editor who apparently owns this article which he/she may consider "extraneous", "unnecessary", "inadequately sourced", and/or "fancraft" text, notes, sources, and images that I have contributed in good faith to this article since March 1, I have deleted all of my earlier personal contributions made over the past six weeks as well as one other image which was unrelated to the text in which it had been placed. Other than that unrelated image, I have not removed anything which had been added to the article by any other editor but only my own contributions. (NGDGU) Centpacrr (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, wins the Oscar for Best Tantrum and Most Childish Series of Edits. By the way, I was extremely annoyed to note that while you're wasting everyone's time pushing images of dubious copyright status that you yanked off a DVD, far better images are available from YouTube from a trailer and are clearly PD. Coretheapple (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Apparently (but not unexpectedly), Coretheapple, you still don't understand that any image that first appeared in a pre-1977 uncopyrighted trailer is PD irrespective of where it may appear later even if that is in an otherwise copyrighted publication such as a magazine, film, book, brochure, etc. Despite your continued claims to the contrary, the two images I contributed (Queeg "A" and Queeg "B") demonstrably appear in one of the several PD 1954 trailers as is shown HERE for "Queeg A" and HERE for "Queeg B" and therefore are clearly not of "dubious copyright status" as you seem to still tendentiously but wrongly claim. Had I (or anyone else) taken them directly from the film as opposed to an off line high resolution copy of the trailer or any other source they would still (and are) therefore be PD images. It also puzzles me as to why you believe that images taken from a low resolution trailer found on YouTube would ever be considered to be "far better" than PD images from "high" resolution sources found off line, and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding on you part of digital image technology.
• That being said, with respect, sir or madame, I urge you to familiarize yourself with the fundamental WP policy concepts of WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COMPROMISE, and simple collegiality all of which you have utterly failed to respect in your behavior in unilaterally imposing your own personal views and desires as to how this article appears to the exclusion of those of any and all others who may wish to contribute as well. Such behavior as you have exhibited here not only flies in the face of how the Wikipedia Project is designed to work for the benefit of both those who help build it and those who visit it for the information and enlightenment it provides them, but your approach as demonstrated here is overtly unhelpful and counterproductive in meeting the stated goals of the Project. (While owing to your behavior none of the material I developed and had contributed is any longer available in the article to those who visit the entry, my efforts were still of benefit to me as I was able to learn a good bit of relevant information that is new to me in a film that I first saw when it first came out in 1954 and have watched again many, many times since.)
• As with everything else I have said in these threads, I fully expect that you are neither going to read or address my comments here but will as usual gratuitously dismiss what I have to say with your customary tired claim that anything more than one or two sentences is just "wall-o-text" and therefore unworthy of your time. There is, of course, nothing I can really do about that. However these thoughts are also available for anyone else who visits this page to read, understand, and even respond to if they wish, so I still find it is worth my effort to post them even if you again choose to ignore and/or dismiss them and continue on with your self centered approach to editing in the project. (I have made almost 23,000 edits to the project in the almost ten years that I have been a registered user so I am not "new" to this.)
• With respect, sir or madame, if that continues to be the case for you, as I suggested earlier elsewhere perhaps it is time for you to find another hobby. Centpacrr (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes "extraneous", "unnecessary", "inadequately sourced" and/or "fancruft" is a correct description of your edits, and "wall-o-text" is correct. We are in agreement. Yes, it is startling how you repeatedly make edits contrary to policy, including policy on image usage and then edit war to restore your errors in multiple articles, including this one. There are at the moment on your talk page notices for deletion of four non-free images you uploaded and used contrary to policy. So please spare me the lecture on image policy. Have a good day, unless you have another wall-o-text to contribute. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• By your "response" -- or rather your again expected and typical lack thereof -- you have indeed proved each of the points I made above documenting your utter failure to understand, conform your disruptive and self centered approach to editing Wikipedia, and complete disregard for the tenants of appropriate behavior outlined in WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COMPROMISE, and collegiality as displayed in your Drumpfian approach to both the Wikipedia project and your fellow volunteer members of the Wikipedia Community. No, sir or madame, we are most definitely NOT in "agreement" on what constitutes relevant material, adequate sourcing, and your imaginary concept of "fancraft" whatever that is supposed to be.
• As for the images on my talk page, most of them (the "Lindbergh" images) have been in place in the Lindbergh and some other articles with the support and consensus of the community since I contributed them between 2008 and 2013 -- between three and eight years ago. (Another one of the images he/she removed is the TIME cover of Bogart which you did not seem to object to either when it was in the Caine Mutiny article.) The individual who took them down has been on a campaign of unilaterally deleting hundreds of images from articles across the project claiming violation of nonfree policy but failing in every case to support that claim. Most of these are also long standing and, in accordance with WP policy, have appropriate rationales on their use which the deleting editor has completely ignored. In fact all of them meet the policy of use of nonfree images. The other notices were all produced by a bot as a result reporting them as being "orphaned" because they had been inappropriately removed.
• Again, there are no "editors-in-chief" in the project but decisions are made collaboratively and not by fiat. WP policy states that if an editor believes that a nonfree image with a posted rationale is being used inappropriately, then the proper practice is not to unilaterally remove it, but to seek consensus in the article's talk page as to whether or not the community agrees. This has not been done in the case of my four long standing images, or the hundreds of others added by dozens of other contributors that this editor has unilaterally removed and improperly orphaned without explanation in the last week or two. Centpacrr (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Well then what are you doing here? Go right on over and fight it. Coretheapple (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That is actually the next thing on my list but I have been busy with dealing with this issue first. I have a real life too that keeps me busy. Centpacrr (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Image "clutter"and quality

I am constrained to observe that the very same editor who bitterly complained when I added two high resolution PD trailer screen shots (Queeg A and Queeg B) in the plot section and summarily removed them because he/she said that the article "is not a gallery", has now peppered the article with five low resolution screen shots placed haphazardly in sections of the article to which they don't even relate leaving the article now, in the words of user Betty Logan (The new images added to the article) above which this user previously strongly supported, "cluttered" and "ruined the aesthetics" of the article. One of the images that he/she removed (Queeg A) could actually be used in the "Cast List" section to supplant four of these five low resolution images as it contains all four actors (Bogart, MacMurray, Francis and Johnson) shown in character in a single image. (I'm sure if I or any other editor were to do that, however, it would promptly be reverted by the article's self styled "editor-in-chief".) Once again I therefore urge this editor to familiarize him/herself with the fundamental WP policy concepts of WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COMPROMISE, and simple collegiality, all of which he/she has has clearly failed to respect here by unilaterally imposing his/her own personal views and desires as to how this article appears to the exclusion of those of any and all other editors who may wish to contribute as well. Centpacrr (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My evil intent revealed again. So happy we are to be governed by the golden principles of WP:Assume Bad Faith. Curses! Coretheapple (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am disappointed for the community of WP contributors—but not actually surprised—by the casual dismissiveness of your reply (and its usual utter failure to respond to the substance of the issues raised), although it nonetheless seems to accurately reflect your "understanding" (actually misunderstanding) of how the Wikipedia Project is designed to work and grow through collegial cooperative effort among its thousands of volunteer contributors. Your basic problem, it would seem, is your apparent belief in an antithetical "do as I say, not as I do" approach to the project which is both unfortunate and unhelpful to achieving its ends. I do not see that my working on improving this entry has been a total waste of time for me, however, as I have personally learned a good deal of interesting information about the background, production and cast of this wonderful film which I first saw when it was released in 1954 and have watched many times since. My only regret is that I have been effectively prevented from sharing it with the community because of your unrelenting "not invented here" attitude that if you didn't personally contribute new material you view it as de facto "extraneous", "unnecessary", "inadequately sourced" and/or your favorite imaginary catch-all category of "fancraft".
• Fortunately editors with this demonstrated "only my way" approach are in the distinct minority in Wikipedia, but that does not mean that the level of damage they can and do inflict on the Project is insignificant. I do indeed believe and practice the WP principle of "assuming good faith", but I only do as long as it proves to be justified. Owing to the disruptive pattern of your behavior in this article over the past six weeks, sir or madame, in your case I regret that such an assumption no longer seems to be justified. I will thus fully stand by and leave my words—all of them—to speak for themselves and move on other projects. You are, of course, free to continue to "stand by" your words too if you care to, but remember they will "speak for themselves" to the community as well. Centpacrr (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. And good morrow to you. :) Coretheapple (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Crickets. I rest my case. Centpacrr (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please. Still waiting for you to contest those four removed nonfree images that are to be imminently deleted. One of them (the Time cover) you put on this page contrary to policy. If it wasn't contrary to policy, why aren't you contesting it? Coretheapple (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Retaining the TIME cover image is now a moot issue as the material on the June 7, 1954 cover story on Bogart is no longer included in in the Caine article so restoring that image is no longer relevant. Centpacrr (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes in this edit you childishly removed the relevant text, with an edit summary showing a really stunning lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works ("removing my personal contributions"). That image and three other images were what Hullabaloo Wolfowitz contends was a blatant violation of nonfree image policy. If it isn't, then that cover would be desirable for this article. I agree with Hullabaloo Wolfowitz. But you purport to be an expert on the subject; you cite legal cases. I'd get cracking if I were you. You say it is "on your list." So I trust you'll do so if it wasn't a policy violation and that otherwise good image indeed belongs in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• See below Centpacrr (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

An opportunity to indicate an actual position on image "clutter"and quality

As usual (and expected), the subject editor inquired of above has once again ignored and failed to address the several WP policy issues I raised which asks if he/she actually believes the original position he/she so unequivocally took in an April 3rd post above in support of his/her summarily removing three images that I had contributed to the article on the grounds that the article is not a gallery, and in support of a comment by user Betty Logan that they constituted "clutter" and "ruined the aesthetics" of the article (the one and only comment which the editor claimed constituted "consensus" of the community to justify removing them), or if he/she did so simply because of personal WP:OWN and NIH factors.

In order to determine what the editor's actual position is on image clutter and quality in film articles, I am going to take the editor at his/her original word as stated above ("The crowding of images in the article is simply excessive.") and substitute a single high resolution PD image in the "cast list" section (as suggested by Betty Logan) which includes all four of the lead actors in the film (Humphrey Bogart, Fred MacMurray, Van Johnson and Robert Francis) in character for four low quality individual images of these actors that the editor recently uploaded to Commons and scattered randomly throughout the article. This will achieve three objectives: a) it will reduce the number of total images in the article from five to two thereby eliminating the "clutter" and "aesthetics" issues; b) it will greatly upgrade the overall quality of the images in the article by replacing four low quality images with a single high quality one, and; c) will answer the WP policy question asked as to whether or not the editor actually understands—and respects—the tenants explained in WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COMPROMISE, and collegial cooperation in editing and interacting with his/her fellow volunteer contributors within the WP community, or once again insists on dismissing them to become the article's one and only "editor in chief" by fiat. Centpacrr (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

As suggested by Betty Logan, I've restored the gallery format. And by the way, you used the same "editor in chief" line when Hullabaloo Wolfowitz removed the nonfree images that you utilized contrary to policy. Getting a bit old, considering that your only acquaintance with policy (WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:FILLIBUSTER, WP:NONFREE) is when you violate it. Sermons about "collegiality" ring rather hollow coming from an account that is as abusive as yours is. No, I don't respond to or even frankly read most of your sanctimonious and sometimes rather comical tl;dr wall-o-text rants. Nor do many others too I suspect. As for the "community" you keep raving about, you had a tantrum and made a series of childish deletions from this article[2] that the community will find very interesting if it comes to that. As for this gallery, it is consistent with the practice in other articles, as it is confined to cast members. (When you earlier put up a gallery at the bottom, you threw in a photo of a building and a ship.) The gallery replaces Queeg A with another image of Bogart for two reasons: 1) Queeg A is too cluttered for this size and 2) there is an unresolved question concerning its copyright status. That being the case, that image should NOT be used until the question is resolved, though in this case that is a moot point. Coretheapple (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why you keep beating the dead horse as to the clearly established PD status of the Queeg A and Queeg B images as "unresolved" is a puzzlement. I see that you have received no support for your claims that they are nonfree in either thread (not even from your co-EIC Hullabaloo Wolfowitz whom you canvassed for support) as ample demonstrated proof as to their origin in an uncopyrighted 1954 trailer reveals that they are both fully compliant with long standing WP policy for the use of such images in WP main space as "free" as agreed upon by the community nine years ago at WikiProject-Film Talk Archive #12 (§10): "Free Images for Films" (April, 2007) and further explained HERE. (I note with some considerable irony that you have now used exactly this same justification for the four screenshots you uploaded as PD from a different uncopyrighted 1954 Caine Mutiny trailer making your continued claims to a contrary status for the two "Queeg" images specious at best.) While you have again unilaterally deleted the high quality free "Queeg A" image, at least you have somewhat mitigated the image clutter by making a small gallery albeit with with the inferior low quality files.
• I elected to remove what little remained of the text material I tried to contribute because of your constant altering and/or deleting of much of what I was posting and materially changing meaning and/or context of what was left. Frankly I had become tired of trying to play wack-a-mole with your interference with my contributions so I just took what was left down. As for all of my earlier comments made in this and other threads above which I incorporate here by reference, I stand by every word of all of them and will leave it at that. Centpacrr (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• The TIME cover (which had an appropriate rationale) is moot for the reason stated above. The "Lindbergh" images all also had appropriate rationales, had been in place in the Lindbergh article from three to eight years, and had all been discussed, vetted, and consensus reached long ago for their inclusion there and several other Lindbergh related articles. Centpacrr (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Not moot in the slightest. It would be perfectly usable if it is allowable by policy. The related text that you removed can be reinstated; it is not your personal property because apparently you added it. If you think otherwise, you have another think coming. I certainly never objected to that photo at any time. Your not contesting any of the four image removals leaves me to believe that in fact those images were removed in accordance with policy. Your promised contesting thereof awaits. And if you are right that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz was wrong about the Lindbergh images, why aren't you contesting those either? Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Frankly I am just tired of the mishegas right now. It was actually the responsibility of Hullabaloo Wolfowitz if he (or she) felt there was some issue with the images that had complete rationales to open a thread in talk with the reasons he/she believed there was a problem and allowed the community to reach consensus instead of removing them (and many dozens of others) by fiat and unilaterally orphaning them. I restored the images and told him/her that was the correct process but they were simply deleted again and he/she threatened me for disagreeing with his/her unilateral actions. I am just not sure I am up right now for dealing with another one of these after the last six weeks trying unsuccessfully to contribute to the Caine article. This is the kind of thing that drives good editors away from the project. Centpacrr (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

HW said as follows on your talk page after deleting the images and you edit-warred to restore them: Nonfree magazine covers may not be used merely to illustrate statements about their publication. Under NFCC#8, implementing WMF policy requirements, nonfree images may not be displayed unless they significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article statements about them -- a standard which is never met when the article content simply reports publication without discussing the cover image itself. Is he wrong? If he is, the image should be restored. NFCC #8 says as follows:"Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Strikes me as a valid reason for removal. Why do you disagree? Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• The cover contains an illustration of Bogart as Queeg which is both the purpose of, and is discussed in, the associated "cover story" in the magazine ("Cinema: The Survivor"). In my view this constitutes contextual significance which increases readers' understanding of the article's topic and excerpt. Covers of TIME are also in American culture more than just any run-of-the-mill magazine covers, but since first appearing in 1923 these covers have been and remain iconic and newsworthy in and of themselves for what appearing on them represents and reflects about the person's notability, fame, and/or notoriety at the time. Much the same is the case of the "Lindbergh" illustrations and text on the book covers depicted in the images that long ago achieved consensus and had been in place in the Lindbergh (and Lindbergh related) articles for from three to eight years. (It should be noted that at the time of their publication Lindbergh was arguably the most famous person in the Western world.)
• In the case of all of these, however, User "Wolfowitz" has simply made unilateral, arbitrary and unreviewed self determinations that in his/her personal view they all summarily "fail" NFCC without, apparently, either looking at the context in which they appeared, or seeking the input of the community at large to achieve a consensus view as to whether they meet policy requirements or not. Each of the cover images and the movie poster illustrate for the readers far more than just that the books were simply published or the movie was released. This is what I mean by User "Wolfowitz" behaving as a self-appointed "Editor-in-Chief" who chooses to operate by fiat. He/she is, of course, free to have his/her personal views on what constitutes meeting NFCC#8, but as that is also by definition subjective, he/she is not free to unilaterally impose that view on the WP at large by mass deletions without ever seeking community consensus to do so. So yes, in this case he/she is indeed wrong and acting against WP policy. Centpacrr (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well then I would suggest that, minus the name-calling, you make that case in the appropriate forum. Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well as I said before, after the last six weeks I'm just not at all sure that I am up to another one of these kerfuffles right now. Centpacrr (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• The NFCC challenged "Lindbergh" images have all been dealt with and are now being appropriately employed elsewhere. I might chose to return to and restoring the iconic and newsworthy 1954 Bogart TIME cover sometime later, but I am not really in the mood to "fight" that battle again right now with those wanting to unilaterally delete it without seeking consensus to do so. Centpacrr (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Bogart quote & Time magazine

(@Centpacrr) On another point: do you have access to the text of the TIME article? I tried to find on the Internet. Google turned up an article accessible via Newspapers.com, in which some of the very same language in the Time piece is said by Bogart himself. See [3]. Looks like either Time copied from Bogart or vice versa. Odd. Coretheapple (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added an external link. No doubt ghostwritten, the publicist copying from Time, but that's just a guess. It can also be used as a source, but there is no practical way to deal with the duplicate language. Coretheapple (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• The 3,856-word TIME cover story ("Cinema: The Survivor") was published in the June 7, 1954 issue so predates the clearly ghostwritten San Bernardino County Sun substitute Drew Pearson piece by two-and-a-half months. Centpacrr (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Separating into new header as it is unrelated. I think the status quo is OK. Coretheapple (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ship inaccuracy

The aircraft carrier that the three officers go to to see Admiral Halsey on is easily identifiable by the 'shown' flightdeck number of "33."

Unfortunately, that is the wrong ship. "CV-33" is/was the U.S.S. Kearsarge. The Kearsarge was NOT IN SERVICE until 1946; but was in service (till 1970) when the movie was filmed. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Glad you raised the point as there should be no identification of Navy ships and other locations in the making of this film unless they have been adequately sourced. I've removed the references that were in the article. This is exactly why we don't allow original research. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Restored reference to the USS Thompson, and added the USS Doyle, as the two ships that the Navy converted to be used to portray the WWII USS Caine, and included two reliable reference citations to support this information. Centpacrr (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Plot

The plot at the current time goes into intricate detail on the "strawberry investigation" and other plot points, but fails entirely to mention the principle subplot, which involves Ensign Keith and his domestic issues. That needs to be addressed and we need to trim this otherwise, as it is far too long per MOS:PLOT. Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

One sentence ought to do it. The Keith/Wynn "plot element" is shallow hackneyed Hollywood window dressing retained for box office purposes and is essentially irrelevant to the main themes of the picture. They are seen interacting in just three widely dispersed brief scenes (twice face to face and once in a transcontinental phone call) which account for a total of barely seven minutes in screen time in the 124-minute film. Centpacrr (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It was a major subplot in the novel, and was significantly downplayed in the film, so it is not accurate to call this "Hollywood window dresssing." And even if it was, so what? We're not film critics. The purpose of the plot summary is to summarize the plot, and at the current time we have a long plot summary that makes no mention of a significant part of the film. Coretheapple (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

As has been pointed out in the WP talk pages on films many times before, a novel and a film based on it are NOT the same thing. This is an entry about the film in which the complicated Keith/Wynn "subplot" from the novel has been all but completely eliminated. The place to discuss that fictional relationship is in the Wikipedia entry for the novel where it would be appropriate because it exists there as opposed to the film where it doesn't. A similar example would be the making of Sen. Orrin Knox (R-IL) in the Wikipedia entry for the 1959 film Advise and Consent as being that of a central figure in the film in which he is only a tangential one just because he is a much more important character in the Allan Drury novel, and in fact in Drury's 1968 sequel, Preserve and Protect, Knox is both Secretary of State and is then elected President of the United States.

The importance of the Keith/Wynn plot in the novel has nothing whatever to do with what it is in the film in which it barely exists in three very short and widely separated scenes totaling less then seven minutes in the 124-minute picture. With all the limitations and cuts you advocate making to the length of the plot section, one sentence to discuss the Keith/Wynn "subplot" would be plenty -- if needed at all. A much more important plot element which you have deleted multiple times over the years (and as recently as last week) when added by myself and other editors is that made in the final scene of the film in which Keith has both been promoted to Lt (jg) and that his reputation has been cleared is indicated by the confidence that CDR DeVries, his first CO on the Caine who had given him a substandard fitness report then and under whom he is again serving on his new ship, shows in him by inviting him to take command of undocking and getting the ship underway from its berth at Treasure Island. The redemption and maturity of Keith as a young Reserve Naval officer after undergoing the crucible of his service on the Caine and dismissal of the charges of mutiny is a far FAR more important plot element than the fleeting references to his relationship with a cabaret singer. Centpacrr (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you about this, and your droning on in wall-of-text fashion about this minor point is disruptive. I put this out there, rather than make a WP:BOLD edit, because I am not sure how to effectuate an edit on this as we have a stable version. If other editors have any thoughts on this they are free to express them, Coretheapple (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• (Comment out of sequence) With respect, sir/madame, I utterly reject your implication that another editor making a two paragraph response that you disagree with in a talk page explaining his/her views on an issue that you as the OP originally raised in any way constitutes "disruptive" editing, and I am also frankly offended by any poster in a talk page attempting to intimidate another contributor into not expressing his/her views by calling for only other editors to do so. I find both of these to be counterproductive and inconsistent with the objectives and spirit of the Wikipedia project. Centpacrr (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I don't find either point especially relevant to understanding the film, but the part about DeVries seems to me as though it may be reading into his motives. We can say what he does perhaps, but we shouldn't guess why he does so. In any case, if either of you want to take a shot at restructuring the summary to include your preferred plot points and can keep the summary under 700 words, then AFAIC you're welcome to do so as long as it's not at the expense of more relevant material. Hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that reading motives into DeVries actions toward the end is OR. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:PLOTBLOAT: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events". Does Keith's romantic trouble qualify? I don't think so. In the film at least, it's entirely irrelevant to the mutiny. Plus it pushes the synopsis over the 700 word recommendation (680 without it). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If it can be worked organically into the summary without causing it to go over 700 words I doubt I'd have much opposition to it, but the last rendition I saw broke the fourth wall and seemed to be shoehorned in as "this also happens during the film!" Just because a plot point is important to the novel doesn't automatically make it relevant to the overall film plot, and vice-versa. Regardless, if the only way to discuss it is to break the fourth wall and add it as I've just outlined, I don't feel that's a net benefit to the plot summary. A more constructive option might be to discuss in the Production section how and why the romance subplot was downplayed versus the novel, provided sources have discussed it. Alternately, have sources discussed the romance subplot in general? DonIago (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Greenwald's monologue to the mutineers

In the novel, the Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk when, Barney Greenwald confronts the mutineers (especially Keefer) about after their acquittal he reveals that the reason he condemns the mutineers is 1) for the same reasons as in the film and 2) because Greenwald is Jewish and as a result has the most to lose in the event of an Axis victory. His exact words were (I'm here condensing the content), "So when all hell breaks loose and the Germans started running out of soap and decided it was time to melt down old Mrs Greenwald-who's gonna stop them? Not her boy Barney. Can't stop a Nazi with a lawbook. So I dropped the lawbooks and ran to learn how to fly. Stout fellow. Meantime, and it took a year and a half before I was any good, who was keeping Mama out of the soap dish? Captain Queeg." Greenwald goes on to say more but, despite appearances, I'm not actually trying to be lengthy. My point is that in the movie scene wherein Greenwald confronts Keefer, which is actually closely based on the scene in the book, they omit all of Greenwald's references and allusions to the Holocaust and to his being Jewish. I honestly do think that change is important because, and this is just my opinion not something I'm trying to insert into Wikipedia, what was in the book, a defence (I'm Canadian that's how I spell it) of Jewish American patriotism becomes instead a defence of standard American patriotism. To my recollection, thearticle does not mention the discrepancies between the book and the film vis-a-vis Greenwald's monologue. Does anyone else besides me, think that it should? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.115.29 (talk • contribs)

It's an interesting variance, but when it comes to 'differences from the source material' we only include those which reliable sources have discussed. Films differ from novels all the time, so we need evidence that the difference was significant enough to merit attention. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

All right. Thank you for your response. 198.200.115.29 (talk) And Doniago(talk), I wish you good luck in your efforts to become an administrator. (I know that's not relevant to the discussion at hand but I do hope you succeed in your goal.) 198.200.115.29 (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! DonIago (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Iwo Jima

Queeg refers to the landing as "the most important thing ever"....or words to that effect. The scenes are obviously from Iwo Jima. The article cites "a small Pacific island", but the footage is certainly Iwo Jima. I realise we can't infer, but can we state the obvious? Hanoi Road (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If it's obvious, then it's likely been discussed somewhere and may be added with a source...though I think it would be appropriate to add that as Production info, not to claim that the "small Pacific island" is Iwo Jima when that's not mentioned in the film. If there's no source, then no matter how "obvious" it may be, we shouldn't add it. DonIago (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal,I suppose. As you point out, IJ is not specifically referenced in the film, though to anyone remotely familiar with WW2 Pacific Theatre footage, it would certainly be "obvious". In fact, the specific newsreel used is ubiquitous and shows up in The World at War, amongst other places. Sources are plentiful, but it does smack of inference. No crime to use IJ footage to represent Okinawa, I guess. Hanoi Road (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, one location "standing in" for another isn't uncommon even when it isn't stock footage. I just watched an episode of The Americans which located Croton Gorge Park in New York adjacent to Washington DC. I grew up about 15 minutes from CGP, so it was pretty amusing to see. :p I do think it might be worth mentioning that the stock footage is used if sources have discussed it, as Production-level information. We just can't mention IJ in the plot if the characters don't do so themselves. DonIago (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Seems so. Hanoi Road (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)