Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Anachronism – Give him a 20

The dialogue in the film about giving Jack a "20" contains an anachronism. British currency at the time didn't include 20 pound notes. They weren't introduced until 1971. Don't know where/how to point this out. Lots of info on other goofs at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/goofs. Wikipedia editors who act like they own this article please refrain from commenting. David F (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What section in the article are you referring to? And there aren't any editors watching this article who think they own it; like WP:OWN notes in its WP:Stewardship section, "Do not confuse stewardship with ownership." Also, Internet Movie Database (IMDb) is generally not considered a WP:Reliable source by Wikipedia; I've been meaning to replace the IMDb sources in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: My response to Ferrierd (David F) above was made before he made these changes to his comment. I see now that he wants to include trivia in the article. Flyer22 (talk)

If you are that IP, then, yes, let's go another around since your posts as that IP and your above post show that you don't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And, in the future, sign in. Flyer22 (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And if you are not that IP, your WP:OWN argument still shows that you don't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work if you think that telling editors not to disregard Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is a bad thing. Flyer22 (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ferrierd (David F), I struck through my latest comments above so that we can start over. We worked on the plot summary of this article okay together, and I would rather work with you instead of against you. Yes, I got annoyed and confrontational above, but editors should expect confrontational commentary in return when they begin a section with confrontational commentary such as "Wikipedia editors who think they own this article please refrain from commenting." On Wikipedia, I either don't care or barely care if anyone likes me or does not like me, and I am quick to be stern with people, especially regarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will also ignore an editor (especially if they ignore me). I usually have no problem dusting my hands clean of an editor. But if someone points me to the WP:Civility policy because they see that doing so is to remind me that I am not being civil, I will usually try to adhere to that policy, even if my definition of WP:Civil differs from theirs. Flyer22 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a moot point anyway because Bank of England £20 notes were in circulation in 1912 so IMDB is wrong in this case. They were withdrawn when Britain came off the gold standard and only reintroduced with decimalisation in the 1970s. This is a prime example as to why IMDB is not accepted as a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding Willaim Murdoch

On one of the commentaries on the film, Cameron and a historian discuss about the accounts of an officer's alleged suicide.

There are many who allege that there is "no evidence" when in actual fact Cameron's depiction is based on quite a number of eyewitness evidence of a shooting/suicide by an officer during the launching of the last lifeboat.

In fact it is more a case of who rather than what, and at present there has been no evidence to be able to remove Murdoch from the list of possible suicide victims. Cameron decided to choose Murdoch as the officer who commits suicide based on the fact that his name appears the most in the accounts and he was in charge during the iceberg collision and during the launch of the last lifeboat.

For more information on the controversy surrounding First Officer Murdoch, and also his portrayal in the Cameron Film, please visit www.williammurdoch.net which has constantly updated information present in an unbiased manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.212.16 (talk • contribs)

See where I replied to the IP on my talk page, informing the IP that we should go by WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

IP, it's good that you reverted this; stop adding it. You have no WP:Reliable source relaying that Cameron stated that the scene was based on that. If you misrepresent the text to make it seem like Cameron did state that, I will change the text. If you continue to misrepresent the text, I will get the article WP:Semi-protected. Flyer22 (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

www.williammurdoch.net is, in my opinion, a biased site. Its webmaster goes out of his way in seeking to justify Cameron's depiction of William Murdoch when in reality the primary sources Cameron allegedly used did not mention Murdoch by name; only second-hand newspaper accounts did.

I myself have done extensive research into the officer's suicide enigma and subsequently wrote this article: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-officer-suicide-enigma.html I can vouch that Cameron was skating out onto very thin ice in his depiction of Murdoch's death.TH1980 (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Return of the King mention

I am quite aware of the note on the introduction that explicitly says to not mention Return of the King as a record Oscar winner, since it was released after Titanic, but here's an excerpt from the Ben-Hur (1959 film) page: "It won a record 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director (Wyler), Best Actor in a Leading Role (Heston), Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Griffith), and Best Cinematography, Color (Surtees), an accomplishment that was not equaled until Titanic in 1997 and then again by The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King in 2003. The page mentions both Titanic and ROTK even though they were winners later. In order to include additional information in this page, the fact that ROTK would LATER achieve the record set by Titanic and Ben-Hur could be included. An example of what it could look like is: Nominated for fourteen Academy Awards, it tied All About Eve (1950) for the most Oscar nominations, and won eleven, including the awards for Best Picture and Best Director, tying Ben Hur (1959) for the most Oscars won by a single film (a record that would later be equaled by The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King in 2004). I'm not there. Message me! 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't personally care for parenthetical statements, as I feel they don't look very encyclopedic, though in this case that could be resolved easily enough by using a comma instead (though then the statement is a bit of a run-on). As for including the statement itself, I'll defer to other editors on that at this time. DonIago (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Censoring the Empire quote

As seen with this diff-link, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi cut part of an Empire quote, calling it rubbish, and I reverted. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi doesn't like the part of the quote that states "Them's the facts." I essentially noted that this is an opinion that no one has to agree with (though other WP:Reliable sources note that it became cool to bash Titanic because it was so popular, especially because it was so popular among teenage girls and women, and that it was the most popular film at that time). The only reason that I've brought this matter to this talk page is because, looking at Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's edit history and talk page, it is clear to me that he is likely to revert me, and I don't want him to bring this matter to my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

See ANI (permalink). Apparently there is a campaign to include those words in as many places as possible. A quote in an article does not need to include everything from the original, and removing the last three-word sentence seems desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

So that's why Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi removed the "Them's the facts." wording. While I am well aware that a quote in an article does not need to include everything from the original, I still view this matter as unnecessary censoring. Why should we remove the "Them's the facts." Empire wording because of a hoax article? If the argument is, as presented in that WP:ANI case, that we are likely to get copycats -- people randomly adding "And them's the facts" to the end of every Wikipedia article -- I still don't see why we should remove the text in question. The text is not at the end of the article. And removing it because of that hoax article is like stating that we can't have such wording at all on Wikipedia because it will give credibility to the hoax article and people can't control their need to WP:Vandalize. Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If people can't control their need to WP:Vandalize, then we WP:Block them. We do not bend over backwards for the vandals. Flyer22 (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't really thought about it, but a glance makes me think that the wording does not add anything for this article. If I had selected that review for a quote, I would never have included those words—what do they tell us? Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes User:Flyer22 _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, your revert was predictable, just as predictable as your lack of an argument on this matter. Like I stated, I looked at your edit history and talk page, and quickly came to the conclusion that not only are you significantly inexperienced in how Wikipedia is supposed to work, you are a grade-A WP:Edit warrior. I will alert WP:Film to this matter for wider input because no matter how trivial it may seem, when we are censoring our articles because of a hoax article and potential WP:Vandals, we are losing. Flyer22 (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Alerted. I am also willing to start a WP:RfC on this matter. The argument for cutting the quote in this case is nothing but ridiculous to me, and I certainly do not want this matter starting a silly precedent in that regard. Flyer22 (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF. You are aware that the generalizations you just made constitute a beach of WP:NPA? If you are so uninterested in the quality of this project that you would rather post nonsense quotes and potentially encourage vandalism, then that is your look-out. But not ours! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not apply in this case, as far as I am concerned. And I am not a son. My analysis of your behavior is accurate. Reading your talk page, you also do not know what a WP:Personal attack is and have misapplied what WP:Vandalism is more than once, but feel free to report me at WP:ANI or elsewhere. I chalk your "10:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)" above post up to being a significantly inexperienced Wikipedia editor. I don't have to explain how I look out for Wikipedia; many at this site already know how I do. Unlike you, I do not edit with a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationale. I am not interested in what you consider a nonsense quote; as far as Wikipedia content goes, I am interested in arguments based on Wikipedia rules or at least a solid argument. You have offered neither on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not up to you to decide how or when to apply good faith. Your analysis is subjective as is your view on this quote. I would point out that your last three posts have now not been on the issue at all but denigrating another editor. So you have not actually defended keeping that piece of quotation for the last eight hours. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I already made my points about the quote. I am not interested in anything else you have to state. There is nothing you can teach me about Wikipedia that my several years of editing this site has not already taught me. I will wait to see what others have to state about your unnecessary censoring of the aforementioned quote. And then, as mentioned, perhaps I will start a WP:RfC on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you probably need to WP:COOL, no offence... someone removes three words and you fly off the handle-? Calm down. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that you need to learn how to properly edit Wikipedia. I have valid reason to have "fl[own] off the handle" in this case. Here...we have an editor (you) editing Wikipedia with an unusually poor rationale to "justify" the edits. And, yes, I know what you've stated above. No need to repeat it. You also need to learn when to WP:Drop the stick; if you want the bickering to stop, then quit replying. I'll make it easy on you this time: This is my last reply to you on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Threats and attacks?! The point is that you don't know what I've 'stated above'- I am still waiting for you to discuss this rationally on the TP (you know, like we're meant to) rather than immediately invoking the noticeboard. And please don't tell people when they can or can't comment. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That isn't censoring, it's simply removing irrelevant text from prose. It shouldn't be a contentious matter; the phrase is extraneous. Lapadite (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean censoring with regard to WP:Censor; I mean censoring with regard to what I stated above -- for the sake of it supposedly giving credibility to the aforementioned hoax article and people not being able to control their need to WP:Vandalize. Both are silly reasons to cut (censor) three words of a quote. That is why it is contentious for me. I won't be changing my mind on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry, Flyer22, but I have a weak preference for removing "Them's the facts." Like Johnuniq and Lapadite said, its inclusion doesn't add any new information, and removing it doesn't harm the reader's understanding or misrepresent the source. It's therefore redundant and can be removed without harm.

The stuff about the Clickhole article is a distraction; ignore it. Popcornduff (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Pro-James Cameron bias?

I note a distinct lack of critical viewpoints to counterbalance the laudatory ones this movie received. I also note a complete lack of analysis of the film's historical accuracy--or lack thereof. In essence, I must question this page's neutrality towards James Cameron (who seems to have a small army of supporters willing to do anything to burnish his image).

I also question the presence of Christopher Goodwin's "giant eff off" quote in the "Commerical Analysis" section. It is thinly disguised laudatory puff which is irrelevant to the topic of the section. I have therefore deleted it, at least for a trial period.TH1980 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I still question the presence of this quote even though my edit has been reverted.TH1980 (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

TH1980, are you aware that WP:Neutral does not mean what neutral means in common discourse? Read its WP:Due weight section, for example. The vast majority of material regarding this film, including its critical reception, is positive. Therefore, this article reflects that with WP:Due weight. Per WP:Neutral's WP:Valid section, we should not give invalid equal balance to the negative aspects concerning this film, but rather appropriate balance. And we have. The Critical reception section details enough criticism of the film, but I am not strongly opposed to creating a well-sourced Historical accuracy section for this article if needed. And if we do create one, it should include critical commentary from those who believe that Cameron got a lot of the historical aspects correct, in addition to people noting what he got wrong. That stated, historical accuracy aspects are in different sections within the article, whether it's the Historical characters section, the Scale modeling section, Editing section, or some other section. And there is nothing wrong with including the Goodwin quote where I placed it (in a section that is specifically about predictions that Titanic would fail to be successful, and that it eventually became the most successful film of all time), which is why I reverted you on it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, regarding your "who seems to have a small army of supporters willing to do anything to burnish his image" commentary, do keep any biases you have against Cameron out of your Wikipedia editing. There is no army of Cameron supporters stroking his ego at this article. But either way, I highly doubt that Cameron's army is small in that regard. He does have a lot of fans, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

All right, but regardless of this page meeting Wikipedia's bias standards, it still not address (for example):

–How hundreds of female fans of Leonardo DiCaprio descended on a grave marked "J. Dawson" at Fairview Cemetery during the film's run and immediately thereafter. At this grave, they left everything from ticket stubs to flowers, to panties and photos of DiCaprio. But "J. Dawson" was not Jack Dawson, as they all thought—he was trimmer Joseph Dawson, a ship's crewman whose only identification when he was found was a card marked "J. Dawson." DiCaprio's fanatical fans even chipped pieces off of Joe Dawson's grave.

-How a couple descended in the same type of mini-sub featured in the film—a Russian Mir—in order to get married at the real Titanic's prow—blissfully ignoring the fact that the historical ship's prow was kept strictly off limits to passengers due to the danagers posed by the bollards, ship's chains, and large vent for the forward forepeak tank located there (which, incidentally, would have made standing at the prow very difficult).

-And, finally, how there is no solid proof that First Officer William Murdoch acted precisely the way James Cameron depicted him. There is evidence of an officer shooting one or two passengers (the numbers do not agree), but no witness left a detailed description of him, not even the number of stripes on his coat sleeve. Furthermore, one of these witnesses later claimed to only having heard gunshots, no shooting followed by a suicide. There were newspaper accounts that claimed Murdoch was the officer, but these must be treated with caution due to the "yellow journalism" prevalent in 1912.TH1980 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, Cameron's 1995 filming at the Titanic wreck was apparently marked not only by PCB in the expedition's food but also damage done to the wreck by the expedition (I have a source for this: http://books.google.com/books?id=8UOtbCmR5NgC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=Matthew+Tulloch+RMS+Titanic+Inc&source=bl&ots=HJtYgqs8vB&sig=uufrB2FbQVF9RsdGshGUKkt0JOo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rk-mUdygA8KCyAHksoGoAw&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false).TH1980 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In the "Fictional characters" section, for the "Leonardo DiCaprio as Jack Dawson" part, we had a little bit of information there noting a J. Dawson, but that he was not the Jack Dawson the film portrays; see this December 30, 2010 text, which states, "After completing the script for Titanic, Cameron discovered that there had been a real 'J. Dawson' who died aboard the Titanic. 'J. Dawson' (Joseph Dawson) had been born in September 1888 in Dublin, Ireland. 'His body was salvaged and buried at Fairview Lawn cemetery in Nova Scotia with many other Titanic victims. Today, his grave stone (#227) is the most widely visited in the cemetery.'" That text was removed at some point because it was sourced to IMDb, and IMDb is generally a poor source; see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. That J. Dawson text also seemed like WP:Trivia and/or WP:Fancruft. There are other IMDb sources in the article that I plan to replace with better sources. As for the J. Dawson bit you've mentioned above, it seems like WP:Trivia and/or WP:Fancruft as well. I don't think it's needed for the article, and the only place I can see it fitting in the article, if there is a WP:Reliable source to support it, is the Commercial analysis section, since this article does not yet have a Cultural impact section.

The "a couple" bit is WP:Trivia or rather WP:Fancruft, but would perhaps fit in a Cultural impact section if the article had one.

First Officer William Murdoch's portrayal is covered in the Historical characters section; that section notes criticism that portrayal received. Any further criticism noted there should be WP:Reliably sourced, and it should not be too detailed. Extensive detail about it can go in the William McMaster Murdoch article.

As for the "Cameron's 1995 filming at the Titanic wreck was apparently marked not only by PCB" detail, where do you want that mentioned in the article? To me, the Production section seems like the best section to place that content in. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The Production section would be a good fit for that information re: damage done to the wreck while filming at it in 1995.TH1980 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What are you asking with your "21:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)" post? How does the text not fit in the Production section, right before the 1996 material if we are going to line things up chronologically? Would you rather have it placed in the Writing and inspiration subsection of the Pre-production section, in the "Descending to the actual site" paragraph? And as for this bit you added to the Historical characters section, that is not a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that the "damage done to the wreck while filming" aspect is already covered in the Writing and inspiration subsection; see the "Cameron convinced Fox to promote the film based on the publicity afforded by shooting the Titanic wreck itself" paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I reverted these additions; again, that is not a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

For now I am stepping away from trying to enhance this page with additional information which reflects the truth about the Titanic versus James Cameron's depiction of it. We seem to be dealing with nit picky matters here.TH1980 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out that matters are already covered in the article and/or that we should be following Wikipedia's rules is not being nitpicky; this is not a WP:Ignore all rules case. I suggest that you become better familiarized with what Wikipedia considers a reliable source by thoroughly reading the WP:Reliable source page. A record for fact-checking is a primary key noted there. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I know all about Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources and its aversion to "user generated" or "self-published" sources. I am sorry to hear that EncyclopediaTitanica.org—one of the most carefully maintained and updated sources of information regarding the Royal Mail Steamship Titanic—is classified by Wikipedia as such, given the care shown for factual accuracy shown by its contributors.TH1980 (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We could ask at the WP:Reliable source noticeboard about its reliability. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

How do we do we ask them?TH1980 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just do what others have done there; start a section about the topic in question, asking whether it qualifies as a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that when I have time.

I must say that I am appalled by how lackadaisical this page is when it comes to the lack of historical accuracy in this movie. I will grant it is not the first or last thing devoted to this film which has this attitude, but I think it is high time this issues starts being seriously addressed about this film. I said it before and I will say it again, here and elsewhere: James Cameron rewrote history with this movie, burying the truth about the Titanic in the process.TH1980 (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

When you can provide reliable sources supporting your statements I'll be happy to support their inclusion in the article, assuming nothing's out of order. DonIago (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that this is a fiction film. No one is rewriting history — look at the countless historical books, articles and documentaries there are about the RMS Titanic. Hyperbolic claims really aren't helpful. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae You are ignoring the fact that hundreds of people did take this movie as being a truthful retelling thanks to the elaborately accurate sets James Cameron had made. You also ignore how Cameron implied his fictional characters somehow reflected historical truth, claiming in his introduction to "Ken Marschall's Art of Titanic" that "the bare facts" would not support a film alone and that he created Jack and Rose to "humanize" the story (a claim at odds with the one he made about wanting to make the film a "Romeo and Juliet"-type story). TH1980 (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: Regarding what was stated above in this section about a real Jack Dawson (see my "03:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)" post), an IP recently added content in that regard. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I note with dismay the fact that DiCaprio fans trashed Joseph Dawson's grave after the film came out was not deemed worthy of mention. Not everything associated with this flick was all awards and praise, people.TH1980 (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is it needed? Where are the WP:Reliable sources for it? And I didn't deem the IP's material as "worthy of mention." I noted above that such material is trivia to me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Historical Errors List

I propose that a list of historical errors be added to this page, just like there is on the Braveheart page. James Cameron did not concoct a film about a fictional ocean liner, but a real one, whose loss killed over 1,000 people. Historical accuracy is thus not a trivial matter here.TH1980 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

We've already discussed this matter with you in the #Pro-James Cameron bias? section above. I don't see why you needed to start a new section about it. I don't see what more there is to discuss on the matter when historical accuracy aspects are already addressed in the appropriate sections of the Titanic (1997 film) article, and when you are not producing WP:Reliable sources for all that you want included or an outline of how the content would look. If the Braveheart article is your outline, take note that it currently is not in list form for the historical accuracy content. That is WP:Prose form. As is clear at WP:Prose, list form is generally discouraged. And I see no need to move the historical accuracy aspects that are already in their appropriate sections to choppy, stubby sections just so you can have a section titled Historical accuracy. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with the above because I feel you are completely ignoring the reasons I keep bringing this subject up, but I am going to let this go (for now).TH1980 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Asking for WP:Reliable sources and questioning what is the best format for an article is not being "extremely narrow minded here," in my opinion. And as for the clique, as long as they are keeping the article in relatively good condition, I see no problem with that either. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22: Your comment about Braveheart#Historical inaccuracy as being inappropriate due to "not being in list form" confuses me. There seems to be a million rules users like to cite in defense or against Wikipedia pages. I respect the WP:Reliable sources rule, however.TH1980 (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

TH1980, don't WP:Ping me to this talk page; the talk page is clearly on my WP:Watchlist, so I don't need to be WP:Pinged to it. Also, I did not state or imply that Braveheart#Historical inaccuracy is inappropriate due to "not being in list form." You should re-read what I stated in this section. In other words: You titled this section "Historical Errors List," and I do not prefer lists; I prefer prose. As for your constant WP:Personal attacks, I am not interested. Also, consider WP:Drop the stick. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of potentially repeating things I've said earlier, I might be amenable to such, but it would need to be well-sourced (by which I mean the sources would need to mention the film, not just establish that the film portrayed something inaccurately), and it may require some restructuring of the article as it currently stands; restructuring that I'm not sure would constitute an improvement.

It should be noted that in my experience, even such sections that start off well-developed often become cruft and OR magnets; I definitely have reservations based on that. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Many articles based on real events have a historical accuracy section and if done properly then it would be a welcome addition to the article. That said, TH1980 does not seem to be taking on board Flyer's concerns: this article is GA rated so what it certainly doesn't need is bullet point trivia dumped in it. It needs to match the tone of the rest of the article. It would also need to observe WP:WEIGHT: such a section should only address issues of accuracy where reliable sources actually tackle issues of accuracy i.e. it should not become a WP:COATRACK for any factual detail that editors can find that does not match up to real life. Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For an example of a good historical accuracy section, editors should see 12 Years a Slave (film). Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: I apologize for the "ping," but I am not engaging in WP:Personal attacks on you. I am sticking to my guns re: my belief that the historical errors in this film warrant mention on this page. And I will take WP:Drop the stick under advisement. As I have said, I belief this page warrants a section devoted to historical errors.TH1980 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a WP:Personal attack, with and without the "clique" part. And so is stating "Your comment [...] smacks of what I shall call 'Wikipedia snobbery.'" I am done talking with you about any of this. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: What you call a "personal attack," I call "free speech." I exercise my right to that 24/7, especially on a site run by chaos like Wikipedia. My proposal re: historical errors began out of my sense of duty to the memory of those killed in the RMS Titanic disaster, a memory I believe was sullied by the 1997 movie. I am willing to work with everyone here, but I keep getting slammed by your group's interpretation of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines.TH1980 (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC) (Note: In the name of respecting my fellow Wikipedians, I have toned down some of my above comments. I still stand by my opinion re: a historical accuracy section, however.TH1980 (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC))

Then write a well-sourced one, post it here and we'll gladly consider it. DonIago (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am working on a list, but finding Wikipedia-acceptable sources is tough at present.TH1980 (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It generally is not good to change your comments in this way after editors have already replied to them; see WP:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. It had been weeks; there was no need to change your comments; the damage had already been done. That stated, I appreciate you recognizing that the tone was inappropriate. And you did follow an aspect of protocol by leaving a note that you changed your comments.

As for your proposal, why do you keep stating "list"? You actually mean a list? Or do you mean WP:Prose form. I won't accept an actual list; it should be in WP:Prose form. And by "Then write a well-sourced one, post it here and we'll gladly consider it.", I'm sure that Doniago means either here at the talk page or in your WP:Sandbox, not that you place it in the article first. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It will be in WP:Prose format and will be sandbox tested first.TH1980 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey just wanted to throw a suggestion out there for you, TH1980. You say you're working on a list and struggling to find sources right? Well start there in your sandbox pages. Get the list down of the stuff you know of and source what you can. Then drop a friendly note here and/or on the film project's talk page to ask for help converting it to prose and hunting down other sources. I'm definitely not your girl for finding sources on this type of stuff, but the stuff you CAN source, I'd be happy to take a whack at some prose conversion. I'm mostly a plot summary and text readability junky around here so that's right in my wheelhouse. And I think you'll likely get a better response from potential collaborators that way. Just fair warning that I can disappear to wikilight on a moment's notice because real life is stupid and mean. Or maybe I just work too much. Millahnna (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have decided to shelve this proposed section for now due to failing to find sufficient acceptable sources that meets the criteria for this page.TH1980 (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the sourcing seriously, TH1980. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

IP-hopping IP bloating the Plot section and emphasizing death aspect with regard to Rose

As seen here and here, someone is repeatedly bloating the Plot section with unnecessary details. And as noted in that first WP:Diff link, I already tried to talk with this person about it. With this edit, the IP seems to have tried to make the plot bloat look smaller. The only sign that the IP took into consideration what I stated is that the IP added "The screen then fades to white, with Rose possibly passing away." By that, I mean that instead of the IP definitely stating that Rose died, the IP kept it open-ended.

As promised, I am about to report this matter at WP:Requests for page protection. If anyone wants to keep the IP's additions, make your case here. I am not going to keep reverting the IP by my lonesome. But if someone comes around to hack the IP's material per WP:Film plot instead of simply restoring the section to the way it was after editors carefully cut material from it to make sure that, while it conforms to WP:Film plot, the important details are not lost, I will restore the section to that previous version. That is better to me than accepting a newly-molded version that might be missing key details. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: Per this, this, and this (followup edit here), thank you, Tenebrae, EdJohnston and Melonkelon. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Catching Colds?

The "Production" section says "Many cast members came down with colds, flu, or kidney infections after spending hours in cold water, including Winslet." But both influenza and the common cold are infectious diseases – caught from germs, not from "being cold." If there really was an unusually high incidence of colds and flu, it would probably have been due to the confined conditions on set, in the same way that colds and flu affect whole classes in schools in Winter, when everybody is inside.Sadiemonster (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Rose's age in the film

Knowledgekid87, regarding your "citation needed" tag for Rose's age, see what I stated here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you cite where in the movie? Where does it say she is 17 or that the film takes place in 1996? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 2#Old Rose is 100, not 101 :). Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, at about 12:51 into the film (counting the 20th Century Fox intro and opening credits), Bodine tells Brock, "Rose DeWitt Bukater died on the Titanic when she was 17. Right?" Brock says, "That's right." Bodine adds, "If she had lived, she'd be over 100 right now." Brock replies, "101 next month." You can confirm this by watching that point of the film at any of the online sites that have the film uploaded. I take it that you saw the film before, but don't remember at what point Young Rose's age was confirmed? Also keep in mind that people are two different ages within a year -- the age they began that year with and the age they turned that year. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This "Rose DeWitt Bukater was 17" scene happens soon after Old Rose calls Brock to confirm that she is the young woman in the sketch (the nude sketch of Young Rose). Bodine is trying to convince Brock not to believe an old nutjob seeking money or publicity, that the old woman is lying about being Rose DeWitt Bukater. Flyer22 (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Critical analysis

The paragraph at the end of the critical analysis section that discusses Avatar's success in relation to Titanic's seems out of place to me. Perhaps it would fit better in the Avatar article? Lpm.mcc (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Lpm.mcc (talk · contribs), that content belongs in the Commercial analysis section because it directly relates to the topic. And, yes, that aspect is mentioned in the Avatar (2009 film) article as well. I don't see how either portion is out of place. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Stars in the infobox

Beyond My Ken (BMK), regarding this edit you made, I thought the matter was previously settled after I pointed to the Starring (revisited again) discussion (now archived). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The actors whose names are above the title are the stars. Period. BMK (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

...is irrelevant. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, my point is that per past discussions, including the most recent one, WP:Consensus is against your style. The vast majority of film articles don't follow it, and it is unlikely that they will until there is consensus for it. I don't see the point of simply listing DiCaprio and Winslet when it will eventually be changed by someone adding the rest of the cast; this always happens when just those two are in the infobox.

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, what do you find irrelevant? Past discussions about this show that it's not irrelevant. Editors, including Beyond My Ken, have edit warred on this matter. I don't hugely care about whether or not the other actors are in the infobox; I just prefer that this matter is settled. In other words, I'm tired of it being an issue. Like I stated, someone will re-add the others to that infobox. And until there is consensus against people doing so, that person will have every right to add them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

BMK's point was irrelevant, not the issue. As, by his argument most of the Star Wars franchise have no 'starring cast' at all... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrath X, per above, perhaps you want to state something in this section about this edit you made? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Actors in the billing block should be listed per infobox film template. -- Wrath X (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Titanic (1997 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/1998/feb/11/entertainment/ca-17727

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hypothermia, and Rose supposedly letting Jack die

While looking for sources to support this, I came across the 2012 Entertainment Weekly source "'MythBusters' settles 'Titanic' debate! Could Jack and Rose both have survived? The answer..." and the 2016 Washington Post source "Even Kate Winslet thinks Rose let Jack die in ‘Titanic’." Both sources are about Jack dying of hypothermia and the debate regarding whether or not Rose let him die. I have often seen this debate on YouTube, but I didn't know that WP:Reliable sources entertained it. Well, unless I forgot about seeing one or two of them. This debate seems like something we should briefly note in the article. In addition to Kate Winslet commenting on it, James Cameron has commented on it as well. Like the Washington Post source states, "As Celine Dion soulfully crooned, our hearts have gone on and on and on for the ballad of Jack and Rose. Some, however, have had more trouble than others with moving on. These people know who they are. They’re the ones who were mere teenagers when they watched Titanic for the first time, their conceptions of romance forever shaped by the sight of a destitute artist and a wealthy heiress dancing an Irish jig. They are, in fact, the numerous letter writers who wrote pleadingly and accusingly to director James Cameron years after the movie screened with a single question:

'Why did Rose let Jack die?'

This is the crux of a viral meme that started making the rounds a few years ago, more than a decade after Titanic came out in 1997. The idea is that there was ample space for both Rose and Jack to fit on the makeshift raft on which Rose staves off hypothermia before being saved. But instead of sharing, Rose lets Jack cede the entire board to her, leaving him to freeze in the water as she dramatically grips his hands." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Jack likely had hypothermia (though the source does not say). Yes, Jack certainly died. Yes, Jack was not conscious when he went under. Did the hypothermia kill him or lead to loss of consciousness and death by drowning? I don't know. The movie does not make this clear. It's a moot point, IMO. That said, we should not say the movie says something that it does not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, I think the above sources are clear that Jack died of hypothermia. And if we wouldn't want to rely on those sources for the statement because we want an explicit statement that says "Jack died of hypothermia.", or some other explicit statement making it clear that hypothermia was the cause of Jack's death, there are reliable sources like this and this for that. The first of those two sources is an Inquisitr source, and it states, "Furthermore, Jack died of hypothermia." And it includes the following quote from Cameron: "If [...] he had gotten on (the plank) with her they both would have been half in and half out of the water, even if they could balance on it — and they would have both died (from hypothermia)." In the second source, which is a Hollywood Reporter source, it relays Cameron stating, "If you know anything about hypothermia, the more you're submerged -- and she's completely out of the water on the raft, and it's only about that far above the surface. If [...] he had gotten on with her they both would have been half in and half out of the water, even if they could balance on it, and they would have both died." All of the sources I listed here in this section, and other reliable sources on the topic, make it about death by hypothermia. As for stating something that the film does not explicitly state, MOS:PLOT and WP:FILM PLOT allow us to do that as long as the content is reliably sourced. I don't think it's irrelevant or moot to note that Jack died of hypothermia, especially given the debate noted in the sources I listed. On a side note, I don't see that we can believe that Jack died by drowning. He keeps his head above water while talking to Rose while she is on the board. And when the film finally cuts back to him after he has died, his head is still above water and he is clearly frozen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If we're discussing this with regards to the Plot section of the article, I don't see how Jack's cause of death is relevant to the story. The point is that he dies, and I don't think it's one of the goals of the film to suggest that Rose, intentionally or otherwise, killed him. DonIago (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The initial post in this section is more so about covering the debate, which is not only addressed by reliable sources but has Cameron's input as well. So I stated that I think the debate should be briefly covered in the article. I will cover it in the article at some point. As for the Plot section, I noted that I do find it relevant that Jack dies of hypothermia, especially given that his dying of hypothermia is a point in the aforementioned debate. It makes even more sense to have "Jack dies of hypothermia" in the Plot section when the aforementioned debate is finally covered lower in the article. SummerPhDv2.0 challenged the "Jack dies of hypothermia" text as not being explicitly stated in the film, and suggested that perhaps Jack drowned. I disagreed with the notion that Jack drowned, and noted that perhaps that bit should be sourced. Since we are allowed to support plot summary content like that with a source, I decided to be open to it even though I would prefer that this bit not be sourced. This bit has been in the Plot section for a long time without any problems and can be supported by reliable sources; so I don't see that it needs to be removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for clarifying your concerns. I think it's possible to discuss Jack's cause of death without having it in the plot summary, and I agree that the film itself doesn't make it explicitly clear why Jack died, though I also don't think it's likely that he drowned. In other words, I guess I'm left feeling that, with regards to Plot, we should either leave it out, or source it. If nothing else, adding a source will be proactive in the event that this becomes contentious in the future. DonIago (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sourced it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary and contradictory plot expansion

TrueCRaysball, regarding this edit you made, I reverted. I did so because it is not good practice to go into real-world talk in a Plot section that is completely in WP:Inuniverse format, and because "left for the viewer to decide" to decide is already covered at the end of the "Writing and inspiration" section, and because stating "left for the viewer to decide" and yet including "dream sequence" is contradictory, and because it was unnecessary plot blot. Per WP:Film plot, the plot section length should ideally stay between 400 and 700 words. The Plot section of this article was extensively worked out so that it includes the important details without being too short. Going by wordcounter.net, the Plot section is 703 words when excluding the two notes in the section and the one reference. It's 698 words when "RMS Carpathia," "Wall Street Crash of 1929" and "Grand Staircase of the RMS Titanic" are not WP:Pipelinked the way they currently are. So the only reason it comes to 703 is because of the extra linking, and an extra word or two that an editor added after the section was crafted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's not clear, I find "dream sequence" contradictory since many viewers believe she dies at the end of the film (especially due to Jack predicting that she will die an old woman in her bed) and since other viewers believe she was dreaming. They either take the reunion with Jack at the end as meaning that Rose is in heaven or that Rose is dreaming. I'm not religious, but I've always believed she dies at the end of the film. Lately, I've felt that the reunion at the end could be her dreaming right before she dies. So my view is that it doesn't have to be a "she's dead or is dreaming" matter; it can be that it's both (she had a dream about Jack and then died). And this is the beauty (or frustration) of Cameron leaving the topic open to interpretation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Your reasoning for removing my parenthesis addition seems reasonable, and I agree. However your reason for removing my addition to the final scene seems very POV-y. That is your interpretation of what's happening. My addition simply describes what's happening on screen that we know with 100% certainty. As a result, I would request that be put back. A more accurate term than "dream sequence" by be in order, but the scene fits dream sequence to a T as we have it defined at dream sequence.

The interlude may consist of a flashback, a flashforward, a fantasy, a vision, a dream, or some other element.

This falls under fantasy, vision, or "some other element". In short, I have no objection to your removal of "Left for the viewer to decide." but I do object to your removal of my addition to the last sentence for three reasons. 1) That's your POV. 2) What I had only more accurately described what happened, it was a little too vague before. If I hadn't seen the scene, I would have been confused how that happened. And 3) this is a website, not paper, we're not gonna run out of room based on 5-6 extra words in a plot description. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 00:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

TrueCRaysball (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), I can understand how my objection to your addition of "the camera th[e]n returns to the wreck of the Titanic where it morphs to a dream sequence taking place back in 1912" seems "very POV-y," but it's a POV based on what makes sense for the Plot section, what is necessary and what WP:Film plot states. Not only can it be validly argued that the line you added takes the reader out of the story since it shifts to real-world terminology, it is unnecessary plot bloat and can be easily taken as meaning that Rose is dreaming. And, if she's in heaven by that point, as a number of people think she is, what you call a dream sequence is not "a flashback, a flashforward, a fantasy, a vision, [or] a dream." When we're in the moment, it is not usually called a vision. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Paranal Observatory?

Why is there a picture of the night sky viewed from Paranal in Chile, which is in the southern hemisphere? best, 213.235.48.244 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The caption specifically says the view was adjusted. DonIago (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding La La Land (film) to the lead

As seen here, here and here, the fact that La La Land received as many Oscar nominations keeps getting added to the lead. My opinion is that, with it being a film that came out many years after Titanic and therefore Titanic did not really tie with it (it rather tied with Titanic), it does not need to be noted in the lead. It also is not yet covered lower in the article, which also makes something that is not yet WP:LEAD material.

Betty Logan and I went through a similar issue with people wanting to include The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King in the lead. Finally a WP:Hidden note was added about that. Similarly, I added one regarding La La Land. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree subsequent record ties do not need to be mentioned, at least not in the lead. I think it would be proper to mention these other films in the appropriate section to provide some context, but the lead should concentrate on the contemporary achievement. When (if) these records are ultimately broken that doesn't alter the fact it tied the records at the time, but you wouldn't start listing all the films that have since broken the record. I encountered this when I overhauled Gone with the Wind (film) where GWTW set records for oscar nominations and wins which were subsequently broken in the 1950s. I didn't mention this in the lead, simply because setting the record was the notable aspect of the achievement. The Accolades section then covers how long the records stood for and which films broke them. I think what is different between this situation and the one I faced at GWTW is that Titanic tied so it is natural to state which films it tied with, and then this encourages adding the later ties which have no bearing on what Titanic achieved. It is not strictly necessary to mention the earlier record-holders i.e. the lead could simply state that Titanic equalled the records for most Oscar nominations and wins without actually mentioning the other films, or you could address it in present tense i.e. Titanic jointly holds the records for most Oscar wins and nominations. It would help curb the "laundry list" nature of the sentence. Whichever approach you opt for though I do not think it is constructive to add the later films to the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining a similar matter, Betty. I'm not sure about stating "Titanic jointly holds the records for most Oscar wins and nominations." since I think it's better to note its achievement at that time. Also, if we state that or "Titanic equalled the records for most Oscar nominations and wins.", it seems vague, and I think that it would lead to editors adding back what films it tied with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I was just tossing some alternatives into the ring. I agree on the main point though that it is the contemporary achievement that is notable and the later films are irrelevant in that context. Betty Logan (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ending of the Plot section

As seen here and here, I have twice reverted an IP on the way that the IP has worded the ending of the Plot section. The first reason I reverted is because the addition unnecessarily bloats the Plot section and we are trying to keep the length of the Plot section under control, per WP:FILM PLOT. The second reason I reverted is because the ending switches in tone, going from WP:In-universe wording to acknowledging the real world with "The final scenes are" wording and similar. The IP's wording is jarring because the section is written without directly acknowledging the real-world up until that point. Who is "traveling across Titanic's sunken deck to a set of doors"? Who is "Going through the doors"? From watching the film, we know that it is Rose doing the traveling, but the IP's wording doesn't even make this clear. As seen with this link, I addressed this "change in tone" style at the MOS:PLOT talk page, and new wording for that guideline is currently being worked out partly due to changes like the IP's wording.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it even necessary to mention the final scene? It doesn't seem very pertinent to the plot. Basically old Rose dies and that's the end of the story. The final scene is basically just a curtain call. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that the final scene ties into whether or not Rose is dead or dreaming (or, like I prefer to think of it, is dreaming and then dies), I've always considered the final part important. It is a part the actors and Cameron have commented on, as seen at the end of this section, because it's such a significant part of the film that leaves viewers wondering (although, in my experience, most believe that Rose dies there at the end). If we remove it from the Plot section, it'll keep getting added back anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with all of the above points. I don't think it's an essential part of the plot per se, but is a significant part of the film...and that if we felt it should be omitted we'd constantly be reverting editors adding it back in. DonIago (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Making love; not having sex

I want the sentence They evade Cal's bodyguard and have sex in an automobile inside the cargo hold changed to They evade Cal's bodyguard and make love in an automobile inside the cargo hold. They make love; not have sex. 81.145.108.15 (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:EUPHEMISM. Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

IP, I prefer "make love" in certain cases on Wikipedia, but I generally follow WP:EUPHEMISM on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding "a feat duplicated in 2003 by The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" to the lead

There has been a recent dispute regarding mentioning The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King in the lead. In past discussion on the matter, the issue was that "you cannot tie with something which was released later." A WP:Hidden note was added to combat this addition; I think it was added by Betty Logan; I'd have to check the edit history from years ago to be absolutely sure. To address this matter, Hummerrocket, who was reverted by Doniago, added "a feat also accomplished by The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King in 2003." After that, General Ization changed it to "for what was in 1997 the most Oscars won by a single film, a feat duplicated in 2003 by The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King."

Personally, I'm against the addition either way, and reverted. This is because I don't see why this needs to be mentioned in the lead, and because it is not WP:LEAD material, and because it will cause editors to want to add La La Land to the lead as well. See #Adding La La Land (film) to the lead above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

RotK is mentioned in the Awards section, and I agree that in the lead this seems like pointless trivia, akin to a line like "this marks Cameron's and Winslet's third collaboration". DonIago (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No real opinion one way or another. I reverted Doniago's restoration of the hidden note only because I assumed they may not have noted that the wording had changed to be clearer, I think, to the reader what was actually being claimed; but no real investment in the inclusion. General Ization ^Talk 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It is just adding irrelevant details to the lead. It is the setting of the record that is important; we mention All About Eve and Ben Hur because Titanic tied their records, so they are kind of central to what Titanic achieved. There is absolutely no point mentioning other films that have no bearing on Titanic's achievement. Pretty much all the points I made at the La La Land discussion apply here. From Titanic's perspective it tied a record that still stands and that is basically all the lead needs to convey. Three other films are already mentioned in the lead, and by adding record-equalizers we would have five and counting which is overkill IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Davenport-Hines quote from Critical Reception

I am proposing that the following passage be removed from this article:

In his 2012 study of the lives of the passengers on the Titanic, historian Richard Davenport-Hines said, "Cameron's film diabolized rich Americans and educated English, anathematizing their emotional restraint, good tailoring, punctilious manners and grammatical training, while it made romantic heroes of the poor Irish and the unlettered".

The problem with this quote is that it simply does not make any sense. While there is a case to be made that the film depicts Third Class passengers in a better light than First Class, Davenport-Hines' choice of adjectives do not accord in any way with the content of the film. No character can be called "unlettered" because illiteracy is never referred to; it is never suggested that anyone in the film has been "grammatically trained"; and "emotional restraint" is not a term anyone would use to describe the film's central "Rich American" villain, Cal Hockley. And then there's the silliest notion of the bunch: that the film "diabolizes" the "educated English." If anything, the film diabolizes the lack of an education, by contrasting the ignorance of some First-Class characters with the intellectual knowledge and curiosity held by Rose, the film's heroine, who is the only character to even mention schooling.

There have been many insightful commentaries written about this film over the past twenty years, but this quote is not one of them, and I do not think it merits inclusion in this article. While the general direction of Davenport-Hines' argument is valid, his reasoning stinks of projection. I would propose we either remove this quote, or replace it with another which makes a better argument.theBOBbobato (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Bob bobato, as you saw, I'm the one who reverted you on the removal of the text and suggested that you explain here on the talk page why you removed it. Thank you for taking the time to do so. I don't feel strongly about retaining the quote, but, as for your arguments against it, it's merely a historian's opinion, just like a lot of other comments in the section are merely opinions. I think including a historian's critical view of the film is an element that was missing before. That stated, there is likely more to be stated from other historians, and we can look to see what else could be added in this regard or to counter Davenport-Hines's viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Bob bobato: We are unlikely to get anywhere with this argument. Essentially, you are saying that Davenport-Hines is, in some ways, wrong. That is not really something we judge. Davenport-Hines, a notable historian, published (in this instance) by HarperCollins, is a reliable source. Wikipedia doesn't so much examine whether or not he is right as whether or not the basis for his theories is right so much as whether he is a reliable source for those theories. Were we comparing sources for the shape of the Earth, we would not weight the merits of B.o.B's theory against those of Neil deGrasse Tyson, we would merely weigh the reliability of a notable rapper's astrophysical theory versus those of a noted astrophysicist. (Granted, a fairly basic physical fact isn't as slippery as a cultural influence, but the method for weighing them is similar.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that it is not the place of Wikipedia to assess the veracity of a source, but it is the place of Wikipedia to assess the relevance of a source. The purpose of a "Critical Reception" section is to summarize the general consensus on a film, while highlighting the opinions of notable critics, filmmakers, and other parties close to the production of the work. It is true that I've objected to the quote primarily because I find it sticks out like a sore thumb; but I've only proposed that we remove it because Davenport-Hines is not relevant enough a commentator to justify keeping it, and because his background does not make him a reliable source in this particular area. Davenport-Hines is a historian, not a film critic, and his opinion should not be presented as an example of informed, professional film criticism – in the same way that Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn't be treated as a reliable source on linguistics. Neither is he a participant in the film industry or a highly notable public figure whose opinion is noteworthy because of his high cultural standing. He is a man who has achieved notability in other fields, and who has happened to write about the historical Titanic, but is not qualified to comment on the film outside of its historical accuracy. That is why I propose we replace this passage with another quote from a more reliable source.theBOBbobato (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Davenport-Hines seems to be commenting on the film's historical errors (though you disagree with his assessment). IMO, that is very much in line with something a historian would be interested in. I fail to see how a film critic would be an appropriate source for this sort of thing as the content would be well out of their domain.

Much as Tyson seems to be a relevant source for discussing B.o.b's thoughts on the shape of the Earth and scientific errors in Gravity, Davenport-Hines would seem to be very much a relevant source for historical errors in this film. Cameron, as discussed in the article, had no problem with Tyson -- no film critic, he -- commenting on a scientific error in the film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Murdoch

I suggest that the cast note regarding Murdoch be rewritten. For example, it reads, "Cameron apologized on the DVD commentary, but stated that there were officers who fired gunshots to enforce the "women and children first" policy." I have heard the commentary and what Cameron, along with a historian, say is, that there is multiple eye witness testimony of an officer shooting passengers/himself. It may possibly have been Murdoch; there is no evidence to rule him out. Cameron gave no apology. We must remember that Mr. Cameron is a film director, not a historian, and his comment certainly does not change the historical fact that whether First Officer William Murdoch committed suicide or not is unknown -there is not enough evidence to prove either line of theory. So even if he feels it was a little dangerous to portray the First Officer as shooting passengers and himself in his film, based on some eyewitness testimony, it still remains a possibility that it in fact really did happen.

Finally, there is the line, "Fox vice-president Scott Neeson went to Dalbeattie, Scotland, where Murdoch lived, to deliver a personal apology". 20th Century Fox (not Cameron) simply donated £5,000 to Dalbeattie High School along with a silver tray. No apology was ever given, despite the media misinterpretating this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.27 (talk • contribs) 03:20, September 4, 2017 (UTC)

The sources cited seem to be [[WP:IRS|reliable for the information provided: The BBC reports on Neeson's visit to Dalbeattie and the DVD commentary is obviously a reliable source for what Cameron says on the DVD commentary.

Here's what can be done:

1) You could argue the sources are not reliable and the content should be removed. This seems like a sure loser, IMO. The BBC is ver likely a reliable source for the visit. I can't fathom an argument that the DVD commentary isn't a reliable source for something Cameron says on it.

2) Argue that we aren't fairly representing what those sources say and the content should be corrected. I just read the BBC article and it seems to be fairly represented to me. I don't have the DVD commentary available here.

3) Argue the content is not relevant and should be removed. It seems relevant to me. Your comment seems to support this view.

4) Present other reliable sources contradicting or fleshing out what the current sources say. What this would accomplish depends on what those sources are and what they say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

20th anniversary re-release

First of all, I would like to apologize for my previous edit on this article from earlier today. I did not realize that it was adding soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia. However, I'd also want to add that this upcoming re-release is also in 3D like the 2012 conversion. If it is all right, then could we add this information it to that section of the article? James Cameron also did say that this one week re-release has been remastered and it goes beyond 3D as well as 70 mm. [1] It has been reported on other major entertainment sources as well. Should this re-release be included in the article? If not, then I will move on from this discussion. And1987 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly not spam so it should not have been reverted for that reason. Does it satisfy WP:DUE enough to be included in the article? It is hard to say at this moment. If the release is big enough for the box-office to increase then obviously that will need to be documented. If there are any 20th anniversary events tied to the release they may need to be documented. Personally I wouldn't have reverted your edit, although I can't convincingly argue it satisfies WP:DUE at this moment. Betty Logan (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Reese Witherspoon considered for the role of Rose

HenryBarnill, regarding this, it appears that you are going by this HuffPost source. But notice that it mentions many names and that we don't include all of those names? Also notice that the article states that the actresses (except for Kate Winslet) turned down the role? What source states that Witherspoon turned down the role? We should not include every actress that was considered for the role. At least the "turned down the role" aspect limits the number of actresses we can include. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with limiting the names to those actresses who were actually offered the role—as the following sentence implies they were—but none of the sources seem to corroborate that they turned it down. I admit I have only skimmed through the sources but which sources actually say the actresses were offered the part and turned it down? Betty Logan (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, the Entertainment Weekly source states, "The next step was getting stars attached to the film, but since Jack was 20 in the script and Rose 17, his options were limited. Looking for a Rose, described by Cameron as 'an Audrey Hepburn type,' he considered Gwyneth Paltrow, Claire Danes, and Gabrielle Anwar. For Jack--envisioned as a young Jimmy Stewart--the shortlist included Chris O'Donnell and Matthew McConaughey, though Cameron ultimately decided they were both too old."

Maybe he offered all of the women the role? Even if he simply considered them, I think we should stick with that short list. As for Claire Danes, her Wikipedia article has stated the following for sometime: "Later that year, it was reported that she turned down the female lead role in Titanic. Danes said that while she may have been considered for the part, she was never offered the role." The second sentence is unsourced. I will go ahead and remove that now, and I should have removed it in 2010; the "someone must have put it on wikipedia" part sounds so false. Also, she is said to have stated the following in a GQ interview in 2012: "I had just made a romantic epic with Leonardo [DiCaprio] – it just seemed redundant to me. The problem is that I always took myself too seriously. Now I realize I should have lightened up. I was a serious kid to an absurd degree. I was overwhelmed with responsibility, trying to play grown up. I overdid it." But this The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) source is questionable due to the paper's reputation. The Wikipedia article calls it a tabloid, but it is speaking of the format. Tabloid (newspaper format) is not the same thing as tabloid journalism. Still, the paper does not have the quality reputation that The Daily Telegraph does, and I can't find any good sources supporting this quote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Even if the names are retained, the bit about turning it down needs to be culled from the second sentence. I have no strong view on the inclusion of Witherspoon: she was in the right age range and in the process of breaking out at the time, so it would have been strange if she had not been considered. However, the line needs to be drawn somewhere and I think a sensible cut-off would be to stick to Cameron's shortlist. Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)