Talk:Pig mask

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pig mask article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-16. The result of the discussion was No consesnus (default keep).

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Saw, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Saw film series. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Delete this entire article

Without an analysis it is pretty pointless. All it says is that they use masks to conceal their identities. Not important enough for an article. Delete the article now. Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no, it's a worth-noting page, the pig mask has appeared in every Saw movie, used for different things, and is part of Jigsaw's kidnapping process. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 03:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest watching Saw IV with the director's commentary? They get into some discussion about the nature of the mask, its ties to Chinese New Year, and Jigsaw's son. I'd do it, but to be honest I'm a terrible writer and don't think I could do the task justice. 96.233.117.170 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theme

Without the theme section, this entire article on the pig mask is empty and bland, and really in short, unnecessary to even exist at all. The theme section I wrote was deleted.

My guess is that it was deleted on the grounds of original research. However, I would like to remind the deleter, that a theme in a film exists regardless of whether or not it is recognised as such by film-makers. Citation is not needed in regards to motifs and themes. If you study Shakespeare for example, none of the stated themes in his plays are backed by citation. This is because themes and motifs exist primarily as interpreted by the viewer, regardless of whether the writers even recognise it. (See theme ). So the deletion of the theme section constituted a lack of knowledge of the characteristics of a theme and the deletion was therefore unjustifiable. Please respond.

Below is the section that was deleted with no discussion:

"Throughout the Saw series, images and references to pigs have reoccurred frequently. While this has been done primarily through the means of the pig's masks, it has also been put forth in other ways as well. In Saw, the character of Dr. Lawrence Gordon is portrayed referring to pigs as he plays with his daughter, moments before secretly meeting his mistress, Carla. In Saw III, the character of Jeff Reinhart is portrayed showing more concern for a toy pig than about the feelings of his young daughter, Corbett. To add to this, in Saw III, there is a scene in which daunting images of rotting pig's carcases confront the viewer. The dead pigs were used for the purposes of one of Jigsaw's games relating to revenge and forgiveness. While in Saw IV, the Chinese year of the pig is explicitly referenced as the year of John Kramer's proclaimed "rebirth" into the Jigsaw killer. It is therefore evident that the symbol of a pig is arguably a motif of an implicit theme of the Saw films.

As themes are usually implied rather than explicitly stated, and can often even be deduced in ways regardless of whether or not it was the intent of the film-makers, the interpretation of the pig motif is entirely debatable. Nonetheless, some common evaluations of what a pig may symbolize include views that they represent dirtiness, uncleanliness, greed, sloth, arrogance, egotism and self-indulgence, insensitvity, and/or the general absense of virtue. Taking this into the context of the Saw films, it could be interpreted that some of these characteristics are being attributed to the characters of the films. Whether or not this is to be taken in reference to Jigsaw and his accomplices (in relation to their cruelties), or to the victims (in relation to Jigsaw's perception that they possess flaws), or both, is subjective. However, the recurring motif of the pig in the Saw films can be interpreted much wider than the characters depicted in them. The pig motif may very well serve the purpose of symbolizing the 'foul' side of human nature itself."


Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)#
It was tagged as OR by another Editor and then after a week (I'm not 100% sure bout that check the history) deleted as such. The guideline is pretty clear that it has to be backed up be sources. And as such it'll have to be deleted again. Of course if you can find a review or another source that mentions this sort of thing it can be put in but until then it'll have to go I'm afraid Agent452 (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you realise that themes do not require citations? I have already shown wikipedia has stated this on their own definition of 'theme' (that a theme does not even need to be recognised by the film-makers). For example, go look up William Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' wikipedia article. It cites the themes of the play with absolutely no citation. Do you think the people who control Shakespeare on wikipedia are incompetent? Or (and more likely) they know that themes and motifs do not require citation. That's just one example- there are plenty of other wikipedia articles discussing themes of other works with no citations (and none needed because of the nature or themes and motifs). If the SAW pig theme is to be deleted, my only request is that wikipedia be consistent in misunderstanding what a theme is, delete its own correct definition in the 'theme' article, and then delete all the uncited themes in all the Shakespeare articles and elsewhere too. Kind regards, Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, Do not patronise me. I'm well aware of the content of the article you linked to and yet, at no point did I see anything that said that no references or sources are required when discussing the theme. The Article merely states that themes tend to be implicit rather than explicit (Note: That is not the same as saying that they are never discussed.)
Although irrelevant to this discussion the difference between Shakespeare's articles and this comes down to the fact that for many years now scholars have been studying these plays and writing essays on the themes which can be referred to in their articles.
But however whilst we are discussing whether or not citations are needed for themes may I direct your attention to the V for Vendetta film article and specifically it's section on theme? Agent452 (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. I deleted the Macbeth theme section though, because regardless of its age, it must follow the same rules. And if there are so many sources discussing those themes, people should go cite those sources, right? Until then, it is 'unverifiable' and deserves deletion. While we are at it though the Billy Doll article has no citations so go delete that whole thing, maybe? Yeldarb68 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Sigh* Whatever, just put it back in. I'm fed up arguing it with you. I didn't do the original delete or tagging and arguing it seems pointless so do what you want. Agent452 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's okay. I'm just going on a delete rampage on wikipedia. Especially on SAW articles. Anything unverified should be deleted, should it not? I mean for the sake of encyclopedic quality there must be consistency, right? Kind regards, Yeldarb68 (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst it's tempting to make some comments which would definitely be assumed as personal attacks may I direct your attention to WP:CITE and even then I'll quote it "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." As your precious theme article states themes are open to interpretation and as such can be challenged thus they need citations.Agent452 (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I already said that I accepted that. Which is why all original research should be deleted. Is consistency not the key to encyclopedic quality. By the way, your claim that I have a pram or toys is original research, and should be deleted until backed by citation. Yeldarb68 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please desist in editing Wikipedia to prove a point. If you continue I'll have to report it. I have nothing more to say on the issue. I'll let another editor with more patience than I continue this discussion. Agent452 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not making a point. Rules are rules. Yeldarb68 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT Now, Grow up. Agent452 (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But I don't have a point. It is just that I now understand the rule properly. I will delete even the theme section if someone else puts that back up. And I would advise you to check WP:CIVIL before making your next reply. Cordially from Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you do, however this tactic doesn't really bother me so continue doing it if you wish. Agent452 (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You have no evidence that I am trying to make a point. It seems you just 'feel' like I am making one, which is not solid ground to establish that is what I am doing. All I am doing is applying the rules. Will I continue to do so? Well, only if I see something wrong that breaks the rule os wikipedia. And if you think I am making a point, why don't you tell me what you think that supposed point is? You say there is a point I am making, yet decline to say what that point supposedly is. This makes your accusation incomplete and unreliable. Best wishes, Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose section: requires citation

It claims that the main purpose is to conceal the identities of those wearing it. But really that is an assumption. For all we know SAW V or SAW VI could explain that the pig's mask had some other purpose altogether. So until there is a citation from the film-makers that the purpose is definitely to conceal identities, the assertion is original research and is an assumption. Besides which, the idea that it was mostly Amanda, Hoffman and Jigsaw behind the masks is also an assumption backed by original research. We have never seen Hoffman actually put on or take off a mask. We have only seen Amanda do so twice. Jigsaw has only been shown with the plastic mask. Therefore, the majority of pig mask incidences remain unknown- therefore citation is needed to confirm the claim that it is Jigsaw/Amanda/Hoffman behind the mask most of the time for encylopedic quality. Kind regards, Yeldarb68 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Would this be enough evidence to suggest Hoffman used the mask? I'd think so. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

Is it absolutely certain that Cecil's kidnapping was the first time a pig's mask was used. Was it stated in the films or is this an assumption? Yeldarb68 (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely certain? Of course they didn't state it in the films, Jigsaw wasn't there to say, "and that's when I first noticed the pig mask", and it's not like Jill had any knowledge of it. But as Cecil was John's first victim, and therefore the first kidnapped, I'd think it's safe to assume that it was the first instance the pig mask was used, seeing as how John spontaneously picked it from a random table. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 03:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Per the Saw IV DVD director's commentary, yes it is. 96.233.117.170 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps a stupid question

The article begins with describing the mask as "What appears to be an actual pig's head" then that its a plastic version...just seems a bit confusing

RE: The first pig's masks used by Jigsaw, as shown in the SAW IV flashback, were completely different. They were cartoon-like masks that everybody at a Chinese festival were wearing to celebrate Chinese New Year's year of the pig. Yeldarb68 (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)