Talk:Pulp Fiction (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pulp Fiction (film) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3

	Pulp Fiction (film) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 18, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 7, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 25, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former featured article candidate

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article was the project's Collaboration of the Fortnight (23 December 2006). This article has been identified as a core article. Large improvements may make editors eligible for awards.

Archives

1, 2, 3

Contents 1 Disambiguation 2 Plot 3 Boxing related Trivia 4 Pulp Fiction in Popular Culture 5 Time Line 6 gun type 7 Wow!!! Plot is mad! 8 Hemingway influence 9 Awards 10 Pulp Fiction is a genre 11 Archives 12 "snorts coke in the john" 13 Wolf's girlfriend 14 DCGeist 15 Tag team reverting 16 RfC: Ellipses 17 Requested move 17.1 Survey 18 GA Review 19 Exclusionary Editing 20 What kind of machine gun? 21 Bathroom v. John 22 Bathroom 23 Gay pulp fiction wikilink 24 perhaps the monologue should be added somewhere?? 25 Which one? 26 Back room or basement 27 Paying Jimmy 28 Merge of List of Pulp Fiction characters proposal 29 The Protection of Children 30 Script

[edit] Disambiguation

Could we stop this without any discussion, please? There's no need for disambig links on unambiguous articles. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The disambiguation should be move to the top of the Pulp Fiction (film) page. rewguy 1:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE - Just because it isn't ambiguous to you doesn't mean it isn't to others. The term "pulp fiction" was around (and popular) LONG before the film was made. And if someone doesn't happen to be a Tarantino fan or a film buff, the other meaning (pulp fiction) is a very likely target in a search. I can understand why some fans of the film might not realize the importance of the other use of the term, but I am completely amazed at the suggestion that this change should be made without discussion. Ward3001 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has naming conventions for a good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.51.246 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue was settled by consensus below. Ward3001 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

While I'm not sure exactly how many days the plot takes place over, I can count at least 3, the plot says two but I'm pretty sure it takes place over more than two days...

Error in Plot section -- The article states Mia and Vincent win the twist contest, yet this is not true. While they do take the trophy home, we later hear on the radio (as Butch is walking past the apartments) that the trophy was stolen. Ptkdude 02:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boxing related Trivia

Could the character of Marsellus be based on the name Cassius Clay (he was portrayed as a boxing promoter after all) as Clay's middle name was actually Marcellus. Although it is spelled differently. Chilkoot 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pulp Fiction in Popular Culture

A previous user deleted this section without transferring editors' work to PF in Popular Culture as per their own suggested home for it. I have reinstated that section so I could pick up the text ONLY, moved the text, and re-deleted the section. raining girl 13:56, 23 July 2007

It's such a shame that the information on Pulp Fiction in popular culture is lost due to the successful AfD. Can it be rescued from the deleted article, cut a bit and put into this article? I have no idea how to see text from a deleted article. Scarykitty 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time Line

Although I appreciate 71.101.34.238's painstaking efforts at creating the "List of Events" and "Order of Events", I would have much preferred all that effort be put into a traditional plot summary divided into scenes (i.e., "List of Events" fleshed out into brief paragraphs), followed by a simple listing of scenes in chronological order. I think it would be easier to follow. Any other opinions? Ward3001 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there was one in the past - it might be worth a trawl in the history files. Girolamo Savonarola 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The time line was great, particulalry the realtime version. Why remove it? Leave it . . . --Fizbin 23:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. And as mentioned, there are previously existing plot sections that did the job well - nothing needs to be written. Just requires a little digging. Girolamo Savonarola

Okay, I've restored the last viable plot summary I could find (back to April!). It's obviously way too detailed, as the tag above it notes, but I think that I speak for most when I say that too much is better than none. Hopefully someone else more skilled can do a proper chop-job. I've also deleted the timeline wholesale, with the exception of the order of events - which is poorly formatted and overly detailed, but I think is a worthy section, and could also use a good cleanup. Girolamo Savonarola 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gun type

re the gun that kills Vincent: "The Gold Watch" says silenced MAC 10, "Bathrooms" says MAC 11. This should be made consistent. Fnorth 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please fix this in Vincent Vega (which says MAC-11) if necessary as well. kthxbye

[edit] Wow!!! Plot is mad!

This article has possibly the largest 'summary' I have ever seen on this site. It could easily be seen as copyright infringement as it goes into so much detail. I don't currently have a copy of Pulp Fiction in my collection, and don't like reworking existing plots. Please could someone do a major rework of this? If not, I will go out and buy the movie and give it a shot.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary was recovered from an old summary that was deleted long ago. Prior to the recovery, there was NO plot summary. It was re-added with the rationale that a summary that is too long is better than no summary, and with the hope that, over time, editors would shorten it. So by all means, give it your best shot. Ward3001 16:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, with it being a copyright issue, no plot is better than an overly long one. Describing a movie in such detail detracts from the profitability of the movie, thus making it a copyright issue as far as I know. (I am trying to dig out which policy had this in).-Localzuk^(talk) 17:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A plot summary in any depth is not equivalent to infringing on copyrights for a visual work. In any case, everyone agrees that the plot summary is flawed as it currently exists (and it is tagged as such). If you feel like trimming the fat, by all means go ahead. Girolamo Savonarola 22:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are incorrect about the copyright issue. A visual work is a production from a script, from a story. That story is owned by the writer or the copyright owner. Reproducing it from a movie, even if it is not the exact same text as anywhere else would be copyright infringement. For example, if I went out and wrote a book based on the James Bond movie, Goldeneye, (but didn't name it that), I could be sued for copyright infringement.

When I find a local shop selling a cheap copy of Pulp Fiction I will have a go at shortening it.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I'm familiar with from my research on copyrights. It might be easier for me if you could give me some references regarding your argument. I'll try to look for some with mine. (But just to note again, I am not defending the current state of the plot summary; merely noting that, as far as I can tell, it isn't a legal violation - just a style issue). Girolamo Savonarola 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here - Copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. Girolamo Savonarola 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to dig up where I read this, but there are so many policy, guideline etc... pages now, it is taking a while.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Fair_use: It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work [emphasis mine], or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation. In this case, the article is considered "the work", so an overly long plot summary standing alone might be exposed by that, but in the context of an encyclopedia article, it passes muster. The main thing is simply that the use of copyrighted material (ie the actual text, sound, and images) be small enough to be considered acceptable fair use.

Again, if you can find any other information that would contradict these, please feel free to bring it to attention, as it would be good general knowledge to have. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 23:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hemingway influence

I dont know if im the only one, but i feel that some some of Hemingways "the killers" can be seen in Pulp Fiction.. Perhaps some of the Pulp Fiction experts should read the short story by Hemingway and decide62.107.84.214 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

The awards section notes that the film won many awards, listing the screenplay Academy Award, but then listing a number of personal awards given to actors at the BAFTA. Several Pulp Fiction actors won personal Academy Awards; this section should list all the awards from both festivals, or should limit itself to only awards won by the movie as a whole in both. Mixing it up is misleading--a reader might naturally assume that since John Travolta's Best Actor BAFTA is listed, any acting Oscars would also be listed, making this all a lie of omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.22.77 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No actors in the film won "personal" Academy Awards.—DCGeist 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I seem to recall Samuel L. Jackson being, uh, vocal about losing the Academy Award to Martin Landau. WesleyDodds 10:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pulp Fiction is a genre

Someone want to explain why Pulp Fiction redirects to the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.174.31 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to. "Pulp Fiction"--i.e., both words capitalized--is a proper noun that is the name of the well-known movie and thus properly redirects to it. The name of the genre is a common noun, "pulp fiction"--i.e., both words lowercased. If you type that into the search box, it does not redirect to the movie.—DCGeist 05:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

The talkpage archives here are slightly broken. Archive 2 is a complete mirror of Archive 1, except that the last 4 threads are missing. I'd suggest deleting the page Archive 2, and moving Archive 3 to replace it. --Quiddity 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "snorts coke in the john"

I've replaced my previous edit that was reverted, for reasons unknown, by DCGeist. In my opinion the entire section is unencyclopedic garbage, but my opinion doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that the passage is poorly written and may be unclear to certain readers. Not everyone will know what "snorts coke in the john" means. My edit was intended to remedy a shortcoming and it did so, without altering a single word of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear what "unencyclopedic garbage" means. Could you please link the phrase to make it clear to me and certain readers? Thank you.—16:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)DCGeist

If I offended anyone, I apologize. Can you please explain why you insist on removing my helpful hyperlinks? Forgive me again, but please see here for some editing guidelines. I'll replace the links, and kindly request that you not remove them without a clearly outlined and justifiable reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf's girlfriend

The article says Raquel is Winston Wolf's girlfriend. I see no indication of that from the movie. In fact his flirtations with her seem to counter-indicate a close relationship between them. 164.144.240.25 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Aganon

It is clear from the deleted scenes on the Pulp Fiction DVD that Raquel is Winston's girlfriend. If there was no indication of this in the final release cut, it would be irrelevant, but in the final version of the film Winston in fact does say to Vincent and Jules, "I'm taking my lady to breakfast."—DCGeist 20:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DCGeist

I have simply tried to make the summary a summary instead of a blow by blow account of the whole film, what is your problem with that, I realize that you have put a lot of work into this article, but it's not like I'm vandalizing the page or something. I just believe the summary section is too long and this HAS already been brought up, what is the point of changing the article back and forth between your's and mine? There is completely irrelevant info in that section and I'm trying to clean it up!--Dominik92 00:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the plot section is too long. It is no longer than most plot sections for major blockbusters like Pulp Fiction. It has subheadings for organization that may give the appearance of length, but I think if you did a word count it would be about average. And unless I missed something, the criticism of the plot being too long was for a very old plot summary that was exhumed from the distant edit history because there was no plot summary. That old plot summary was too long, but the current version is not that long. Check the very old history of edits to the plot section. Ward3001 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. In addition, the material that Dominik92 wants to cut is by no means "completely irrelevant," as he says. The conversation between Jules and Vincent in the car is one of the most notable and remarked-upon pieces of dialogue in the film (and, I dare say, in 1990s Hollywood cinema). For those who don't have the entire movie memorized, locating it in the film's sequence and introducing the phrase "Royale with Cheese" by which it is known is very relevant indeed to a good understanding of the film.—DCGeist 07:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a well-sourced sentence on the dialogue's fame to the "Influence and reputation" section that should sufficiently evidence the "relevance" of indicating (a) where this dialogue appears in the film and (b) its most significant contents, as the plot summary has done and again does.—DCGeist 08:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag team reverting

Bullets are terrible ways to break pages. It is inconsistent with the style of all the other articles. I've never even seen them used in this manner before, and for good reason. They screw up the rendering in several browsers and look entirely ridiculous in others. In addition, "the triple apostrophes ( ''' ) that make words appear in boldface are not used in headings. Nest headings correctly" (Wp:mos#Section headings). DCGeist, Ward3001, either of you want to explain why both of you insist on tag team reverting an inferior version of the article that doesn't even render correctly, and insist on throwing out accusations? 64.91.188.189 21:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with what you see as "terrible" formatting, but I'll let DCGeist provide his explanation since he made the edits. Your accusation of "tag team reverting" is uncalled for. We both happen to disagree with you; there is no conspiracy against you. Ward3001 22:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you provide an explanation? You aren't exempt from discussion. My accusation of "tag team reverting" stands, much more than your failed assertion of me violating the 3RR. 64.91.188.189 22:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR assertion is not failed. Read my comment on your talk page. And I have every right to disagree with you while allowing the original editor to explain the edits. Once again, please cool down and keep the discussion civil. Ward3001 22:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's centralize your defamation to my user talk page, where you can continue to falsely accuse me of violating the 3RR. On this page, I'd like you to explain the reasoning for your edits instead of relying on DCGeist to do it for you. 64.91.188.189 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you're making false accusations. I have not defamed you. Read my response about 3RR on your talk page. And, once again, please cool down and stop making false assumptions about me (or at least stop expressing them). I can agree with DCGeist without having to repeat back what he says. Ward3001 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop telling me to cool down when you are the one who has escalated the situation. Please cease your false accusations on this talk page. I don't mind you slandering me all you want on my user talk page, but please don't force it on others who happen to stumble upon this talk page. 64.91.188.189 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is my last response to you on this talk page. I may have other things to say to other editors, but none of my comments will be directed toward you, so please do not interpret them that way. Ward3001 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So much for discussion, eh? Interesting that you haven't yet responded or commented about Eleland's statements below, but continue to pretend to promote the very thing you avoid. 64.91.188.189 23:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon, I explained in my most recent edit summary why the version you and you alone prefer is inferior. I'm more than happy to see you come up with a formatting style that clearly and accurately indicates the structure of the film as the current format does for most (though apparently not all) common browsers. The style you wanted to introduce and repeatedly reverted to doesn't come close, I'm afraid.—DCGeist 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me add, the use of bullets is extremely common in Wikipedia, so common it can easily be considered standard practice. Ward3001 22:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

They are used, but never in this manner. I'm trying to keep with Wikipedia:Accessibility, as the inferior reversion both of you insist on keeping simply doesn't work in many browsers. Although neither of you have said anything against my changing of the bolded text. If you have nothing against it, why the hell didn't you do a partial revert? That'd be the civil thing to do. 64.91.188.189 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We didn't mention them because they are part and parcel of your poor reformatting. The bolded text are not "headings" in the sense of subsection titles--the MOS topic you reference. They reflect the lead intertitles of the film itself and are essential to understanding the film's narrative structure and style. To format them as nested subsection headers would be incorrect.—DCGeist 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How can you so easily speak for Ward3001? Let him explain for himself. The bolded text are headings in the sense of subsection titles. They are clearly subsections of the plot. 64.91.188.189 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DCGeist on this issue. Ward3001 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree that you're wrong. How's that for the discussion you claim to promote on my user talk page? 64.91.188.189 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely correct that bullets should not be used in this manner. Not only do they no show in some browsers, they do not create proper entries in the table of contents and they are useless for visually impaired people using screen readers. Their use here appears to be an attempt to replicate Ellipsis as might be used in a printed work, but this isn't paper and we shouldn't try to use typographical symbols instead of standard Wiki formatting. If it is considered vital to replicate the lead intertitles of the film, then do it with normal headings. <eleland/talkedits> 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Ellipses

• Should <br/> tags and * * * be used to delimit portions of the plot summary?

• I think the issue regarding screen readers for visually-impaired readers is valid, so I would be interested in comments from visually-impaired editors. But I have a question about table-of-content entries: Wouldn't the TOC entries be correct if the proper markup for subheadings (equal symbols) is used, with or without breaks? Ward3001 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• As long as the === notation is used, the contents are generated properly. <eleland/talkedits> 23:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Headings should always, always, always be made with "==" and "===", with no exceptions. All modern screen readers allow the user to navigate between headings with a single key, and headings are an important way to define the structure of the page. For that reason, they should always be nested correctly. By default, most screen readers, including the most popular one JAWS, don't give any indication at all when you hit bold text, so the section title and the section text would run together which sounds very strange. The "***" trick sounds precisely like this by default with JAWS: "list of 1 items, bullet, list of 1 items nesting level 1, bullet, list of 1 items nesting level 2, bullet, list end nesting level 2, list end nesting level 1, list end". Everything separated by commas is read on its own line, so I have to arrow down nine times to hear what is basically junk. Graham87 01:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you find a formatting trick that expresses the complexities of the film without sacrificing accessibility, then go for it. At the moment I can't think of one besides using subheadings. The current layout is unacceptable from an accessibility standpoint. I'll inform the people at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility about this conversation - I'll see if I can get some sighted people to help. Graham87 13:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Having read the article all the way through, I think I understand the issue a bit better now. You need some way to signify the relationship between the three concurrent storylines, the different scenes of the film and the film's non-linearity. I personally don't understand how subsections hinder that goal - if the subsection names were made more descriptive, would that help? I have only engaged properly in about half a dozen films in my whole lifetime - not being able to see doesn't help, as well as the fact that I have trouble following plot lines generally. So I'm afraid that this is way out of my league ... Graham87 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Whichever way we do it we shouldn't use breaks and bullet points - it's ugly, unprofessional, and goes against our MOS. Using subheadings might not be ideal but until a decent alternative is put forward we should use them. I've put HRs in there to help towards a compromise - can we now have the discussion on this page rather than edit warring? violet/riga (t) 15:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the horizontal rules - they do read in JAWS as "dash dash dash" under the default settings but they sound much better than what was there before. Graham87 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. In terms for stability, has the RfC for the stylistic issues been resolved yet? No commentary since October 13, so I don't see a reason to outright fail for stability, just curious if you feel that consensus has been reached on the MoS issues.
2. Minor stylistic concern, but why are the category headings under "Awards" not centered?
3. The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. Specifically, it needs to touch upon or summarize all the major points made in the article. Since the article itself is so long, this will necessitate the lead being longer than usual. For example, there's nothing in the lead currently about the plot or the production/development of the film.
4. There are a lot names used here without proper explanation of who they are and why they are qualified not only to have such a detailed opinion of the intricacies of film, but why their opinion is notable enough to be included in this article. Under "Overview," for example you mention "Critic Geoffrey O'Brein..." Critic for what? Obviously people can click on the reference to find out, but about half a sentence should be devoted to quickly explaining who he is. For example, "Geoffrey O'Brein, a published critic of film, argues otherwise..." Later in the section, names are listed without any explanation of who they are; Nicholas Christopher, for example. Even Foster Hirsch, who has his own Wikipedia page, should have a brief description of his "qualifications" so to speak, as per my example above. Another example under "Soundtrack" is Estella Tincknell. Who is she and why is she "qualified" to tell me about the music? Same with Ken Dancyger and Paula Rabinowitz under "Influence and reputation." Also Catherine Constable and many others under "Critical analysis."
5. The plot to me seems excessively detailed although I do acknowledge, of course, that many subtle nuances are essential to a full understanding of the film. Moreover, on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot, Pulp Fiction (although ostensibly an earlier version) is given as an example (although not for plot length, but plot ordering. Anyhow, at the moment I won't insist that it is shortened but, given the already significant length of this article, I would like to hear your justification for including such a long and detailed (more than the recommended 900 words - 1185 by my count). Small example from the first section: why does it need to be mentioned that Vega is riding shotgun, for example. In fact, parts of the plot worries me that it's written a bit too unencyclopedically - is "riding shotgun" an encyclopedic term? What about "He is in his boxing colors and it is time for the fight that he has been paid to throw." Note in that last one, I corrected the use of contractions (originally it read "it's time for the fight that he's been paid to throw"), which is another sign that the section is being written more in "layman" terms than for an encyclopedia (and this was not the only time that I made these corrections). There are many more examples, but I think that these are good examples even if it seems sort of silly to mention. I suggest a trim (even a small one would help), although I'm open to arguments as well.
6. There are some statements, including in the lead, that sound fairly POV without a direct citation. For example, under Plot "After their witty, philosophical banter..." I found it witty as well, but unless you have a source that uses that wording, it seems like more an advertisement or opinion, especially since this is a film, which people may subjectively enjoy or dislike. Calling banter "witty" or the diner "slick" may be very obvious to anyone who's seen the film and enjoyed it but, to those who haven't, it comes across as POV, especially since these adjectives are not particularly crucial to the article.
7. The number of quotes detracts from the prose and makes the article read more like an essay than anything else. Rather than quoting directly, it is much more preferable, stylistically, to summarize their sentiments, or quote small parts in the footnotes. Block quotes that can be replaced by summaries are superfluous. If people want to see the justification of your summary or see the exact quotes, they can check on the references or footnotes. The exception is, of course, in the reviews section, but even there summaries can be helpful.
8. Some statements require citations:

   "Tarantino's script was produced as Reservoir Dogs, his directorial debut; Avary's, titled "Pandemonium Reigns," would form the basis for the "Gold Watch" storyline of Pulp Fiction." (Development and Production)

   "The Vietnam War veteran. Walken delivers a memorable performance in a small role. He appeared in another small but memorable role in the "Sicilian scene" in the Tarantino-written True Romance a year earlier." (Christopher Walken). Completely POV without a proper citation.

9. "For the costumes, Tarantino took his inspiration from French director Jean-Pierre Melville, who believed that the clothes his characters wore were their symbolic suits of armor." (Development and production) This needs expansion. What does it mean? How as it practically applied to the film? To the style of costumes? One sentence is not enough to fully explain an idea as non-standard to the layman as this.
10. Be careful of using the exact same verb consecutively. In "Release and reception," for example, the verb "wrote" is completely overused, especially when there are many other verbs that could be used in its place.
11. The "Critical analysis" section makes me wonder if the article is focused or not. It seems to go into highly specific interpretations that are somewhat irrelevant to the understanding of the film in an encyclopedic context. I suggest that it should either be removed, or given its own article under the heading of "Critical analysis of Pulp Fiction" or something along those lines.

Aside from these concerns, the biggest problem is the prose, which even after my editing of the article, does not read well enough as an encyclopedic article (which, as mentioned above for the Plot section, needs some work - also "building buzz" in the "Release and reception" section is another example — and there are many) I feel that this article would benefit from a partial rewrite and time spent reflecting, proof reading and perhaps having a fresh set of eyes going over it; a hold would not do it justice. For that reason, I am going to fail the article for now. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to WP:GAR. Once these concerns have been addressed, and the prose has been improved, it may be renominated. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exclusionary Editing

I find it disturbing that certain contributors to this page exclude all contributions other than their own. If one looks at the history of the Pulp Fiction (film) page, it is obvious that one or two contributors remove all edits by other individuals. This creates a one-sided presentation of the material that contradicts the spirit of Wikipedia, which is that anyone should be able share his or her knowledge and present information from a point of view differing than that of others. The result of this exclusionary editing is that this page has become one person's view of Pulp Fiction, and does not represent a balanced perspective on the movie, and compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. No page should become the work of one person. Those editors who camp out on a page and bar other contributions should re-evaluate their motivation for participating in Wikipedia.CurtisJohnson 04:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think if you look more closely, you will see that many of the reverts or deletions are for vandalism and violation of Wikipedia policies (especially adding unsourced information). And I also think you'll see that some of these reverts are made by a variety of editors. Also, be sure that the edits you are concerned about are actually reverts or deletions, as opposed to additions. It is true that one editor has done the majority of recent additions, but that is because he was willing to put the effort into repairing an article with a lot a problems. If you can point out some examples of where it is "obvious that one or two contributors remove all edits by other individuals" that are not removal of vandalism or policy violations, please do so. Thank you. Ward3001 03:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This will be my only response on this issue; between my work and personal obligations, I don't have the time to get into an opinion conflict. For the sake of efficiency, I will use one of my own edits as an example of a non-vandalistic edit that was removed based entirely on subjective reasons. There are many others that readers can find in the history of the page. At one point, I added a brief bit of background on Susan Fraiman, who is quoted as an authority on "Pulp Fiction." Such background informs the readers and gives them a context in which to interpret the quote. Any good newspaper or journalistic magazine would give similar information. The lack of biographical information on other sources weakens this article and makes it less encyclopedic. My contribution was removed quickly. Personally, I think this article needs to be rewritten from the ground up, with an eye towards brevity. See the article on "Local Hero" for an example of a film article that is well written. CurtisJohnson 13:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see why you felt that the example you pointed out should not have been deleted, although my personal opinion is neutral. I can understand why you feel it is important, and at the same time I can understand why we need to avoid listing bio information for every source that is cited.

Please understand, I'm not denying that you have a point. I would simply like to see more than one example so that all of us can get some idea if a pattern or trend exists that would indicate exclusionary editing. Ward3001 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Addressing the specific case raised by CurtisJohnson, he is basically correct when he writes in reference to his edit adding biographical information on one of the many critics and scholars cited in the article, "Any good newspaper or journalistic magazine would give similar information." However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper or journalistic magazine. We might just as well observe that any good scholarly reference work does not routinely give biographical data on the many scholars it cites.

In sum, CJ is incorrect when he writes, "The lack of biographical information on other sources weakens this article and makes it less encyclopedic." What this article—and what good articles across Wikipedia—provide, is detailed information on the source of the critic's statement. Thus, the reader can immediately identify that the critic's work has been published by a reputable publisher; this is the information that is essential to the reader within the context of an encyclopedia article. Any ancillary information a specific reader desires may be accessed through the source. Someone who has turned to Wikipedia specifically to learn about Pulp Fiction is unlikely to be informed by the statement that a given critic is "an English professor at the University of Virgina and feminist scholar." The last comment in the description, by the way, raises a whole new isue of POV--Fraiman may be a relatively clear-cut example of a "feminist scholar," but does every critic's specific field of interest then need to be similarly characterized...and how? What do we learn from such a characterization that helps us to understand the article topic? And what about critics, like Geoffrey O'Brien, who are not primarily identified with academic positions? Do we describe them all as some variation of "the widely published critic"?

What's important to encyclopedia users, at any rate, is (a) what the scholar says and (b) that the scholar has been published in a reputable source that the reader can locate if desired. The rest is superfluous in this encyclopedic context, as it is in the context of most scholarly reference works. CJ's argument is also self-contradictory: he wants a much briefer article, yet the logic of the ad hoc edit he defends would demand that biographical data be added to the first mention of every single critic. Finally, it should be clear that is CJ is incorrect when he writes that his edit "was removed based entirely on subjective reasons." My reasons for removing the edit, just described, are relatively objective compared to CJ's choice of Fraiman alone for the addition of selective biographical data.

I do find CJ's grander opinion intriguing: "Personally, I think this article needs to be rewritten from the ground up." Well, let's take a look at that. It should take much, much less work than what went into the current version. The extensive research that supports any excellent Wikipedia article has already been done in this case. CJ, why don't you write the shorter version you'd like to see, sandbox it, let us know on this page, and we can compare and judge.—DCGeist 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"... why don't you write the shorter version you'd like to see, sandbox it, let us know on this page, and we can compare and judge." Response - No. Too busy with job, family, outside activities, personal writing, obligations, friends, etc. In other words, my life takes precedence over this. CurtisJohnson 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my own $0.02. I stumbled across this article as a general user of Wikipedia, and found it incredibly informative, yet maddeningly non-encyclopedic; it reads like one person's essay about the significance of Pulp Fiction. I wouldn't remove the sections detailing the scholarly criticism of the movie, but I would clean up the style and let other eyes make substantial revisions to give the article a more "global" tone.

I'm not a Wikipedia-expert, and I'm not much of a writer, but I am a well-educated guy, so I suspect that my impression of the article is shared by others in the intended audience.-DZOP

When you say that "it reads like one person's essay about the significance of Pulp Fiction," I assume you are identifying what you feel to be the source of a problem with the article. And that problem--again, I assume--is what you perceive to be the expression of a personal point-of-view about the film, rather than a verifiable, neutral report on what reputable observers have observed about the film and its significance. Could you give a couple examples of where you see this personal POV in evidence? Thanks, Dan—DCGeist (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that there's a perceived personal POV. Rather, I see a tone issue here. Why did the writer of this article choose -these- particular academic critics to cite? Are they leaders in the field? Do the cited scholars represent the entirety of the criticism of the movie? If not, why are others left out? Why are the chosen selected?

The assumption has to be that the reader will have no background in film theory or academic film criticism (like me), but nevertheless would benefit from a concise, thorough explanation of the extant criticism (also like me). Rather than citing particular authors, perhaps, the article should integrate their views and state the academic consensus without excessive quotation. This is not a journal article.-DZOP

Here's my two cents. The more integrating that is done, the more likely that the writing edges into POV and original research. In other words, if I integrate comments from ten reviewers, then you're more likely to get my opinion than you are the reviewers' opinions. As for the issue of how the particular reviewers' articles are chosen, where would that be indicated except by giving a citation and making a brief comment about who the reviewer is? If you give the credentials of every source that you cite, it is unnecessarily distracting to the substance of the article, and it lengthens the article into a bloated mess. If you look at the history of this article, in the past the plot summary was completely deleted because it turned into an overly long, meandering conglomeration. If there are citations in the article, the reader can check the sources if he or she is curious to determine how qualified the reviewer might be. If necessary, others can add additional perspectives if they feel that the article hasn't examined the major critics adequately. But we must be careful not to stretch the article into the massive size that it used to be. Ward3001 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What kind of machine gun?

What kind of machine gun is that supposed to be, the one that is Vincent's, which Butch kills him with? 67.5.147.114 (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In the published version of the screenplay, it is identified as a "small compact Czech M61 submachine gun with a huge silencer on it."—DCGeist (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bathroom v. John

I don't see the reasoning behind using the word 'john' in place of 'bathroom' in the Bathroom (Notable Motifs) subsection. DCGeist points to Websters in claiming that it is appropriate usage, however almost the entire subsection continuously refers to it as the bathroom. Not the loo, the can, the head, the toilet, or anything else, but the bathroom. I imagine that another reversion would just be undone, so I bring it up in the talk page. Roscoestl (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A synonym is useful in the sentence in question in order to avoid three consecutive sentences with "bathroom" and maintain a certain level of euphony. (You will note that throughout the subsection, no three consecutive sentences include the word "bathroom.") As for the specific use of the word "john," it is the shortest standard synonym and, I believe, the most euphonious in this particular context. Please note, the leading Merriam-Webster's dictionary lists many words that it flags as "slang"; it lists "john" as standard. Merriam-Webster's also lists many words that it flags as "archaic" or "obsolete"; again, it lists "john" as standard.—DCGeist (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Despite Webster's not classifying it as slang, I believe a majority of those who regularly use the English language would consider using john in place of bathroom a use of slang. Roscoestl (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bathroom

The Bathroom section under "notable motifs" is unnecessary and unbecoming of an encyclopedia article containing general information about the film Pulp Fiction.

I am suspicious of a particular source for much of the discussion. Susan Fraiman?-- the entry under "notes" is not helpful at all in determining where this in depth opinion comes from. I am moderately familiar with citation formats, and I can see that there are page numbers listed for a book that is not listed.

I would recommend that the entire bathroom section be deleted.

Thanks for your time,

76.165.236.111 (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your individual comfort or discomfort with a given topic--like, in general, personal opinions about what subjects are "becoming" or "unbecoming"--can not enter into our judgment here. Think about it a bit. The leading dictionary of American English, Merriam-Webster's, includes, among many other unpleasant terms, the words "shit" and "crap." Should they be eliminated from the dictionary because you or I find them "unbecoming"? You have also misrepresented the article content. It obviously provides much more than "general information" about the film. It conveys a wealth of detailed information, including a survey of motifs in the film that multiple critics have taken up as significant.

Among the five different authors (or sets of authors) cited in the section, you have declared your suspicion of one--Susan Fraiman. On what basis? You claim that you "can see that there are page numbers listed for a book that is not listed." Fraiman's book--Cool Men and the Second Sex, published by Columbia University Press--is in fact listed, as are the specific sources for all the other citations. Despite your claim to be "moderately familiar with citation formats," you appear to have entirely failed to grasp the one that is applied consistently throughout the article for book-based sources. In the note, the author's name, the year of publication, and the page number(s) are given. Under Sources, full publication information including title, location of publication, publisher's name, and ISBN number is given, following (just as in the notes) the author's name and year of publication. This citation format is used in many Featured Articles here, including, for instance, B movie, Film Booking Offices of America, Kinetoscope, Mutual Broadcasting System, and sound film. Brooker and Brooker's essay "Pulpmodernism: Tarantino's Affirmative Action" and Willis's book High Contrast: Race and Gender in Contemporary Hollywood Film are also cited in the section and in precisely the same manner. Denby's article "The New Disorder" and White and Thompson's article "Tarantino in a Can?" are also cited in the section. They were accessed online and are thus cited in the format consistently applied to that type of source.

I'm afraid you have provided no valid basis for your recommendation.—DCGeist (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gay pulp fiction wikilink

Can someone, preferably the person who wrote it, please explain to me the logic in the phrase 'rape' wikilinking to gay pulp fiction. I understand the reference to pulp magazines from the title, I understand how gay pulp fiction is the gay variation, and I know the rapists are gay men, but I still do not understand what the point of the wikilink is that links gay pulp fiction to gay rape.

Certainly gay pulp fiction deals will rape (see the wiki article), but it goes far beyond that, and the wikilink implies, to me at least, that there is a clear link between (gay) rape and gay pulp fiction, and i really can't see that. I'd be interested in the community's opinion Ged UK (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that the person who introduced the link assumed that Tarantino was in some degree inspired by gay pulp fiction. Given your well-reasoned argument, that would appear to be just about the only rational basis for maintaining the link. I'll check my sources on the film and see if any reputable analyst of the film does make that connection. If one does, I'd add a sentence on it to the Critical analysis section and move to maintain the link. If not, I'd be in favor of cutting it.—DCGeist (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any luck? If not, i'll take the link out in the next couple of days. Ged UK (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] perhaps the monologue should be added somewhere??

Well there's this passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you." I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never gave much thought what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass. I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. See now I'm thinkin', maybe it means you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9 Milimeter here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. Now I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo.I'm tryin'real hard to be a shepherd. 151.199.16.223 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it could just have the chapter/verse reference, but I don't think wikipedia should really be quoting chunks of dialogue. Ged UK (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's just a paraphrase that takes some of Ezekiel's words in different verses and rephrases. But I agree that it's too much to include the entire quote. Ward3001 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which one?

"The part was written specifically for Keitel, who had starred in Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs and was instrumental in getting it produced."

Which is it, Pulp Fiction or Resorvoir Dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.254.155.48 (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs, the only movie which could possibly be "it" given the structure of the sentence. (The only other grammatically possible "it" in the sentence is "the part.")—DCGeist (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back room or basement

I count Willis descending at least seven steps as he goes down the stairs with the sword. Moreover, here are three sources which describe it as a basement.[1][2][3] Gwen Gale (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept your argument, although I don't have a lot of faith in the first review (which spells "elicit" as "illicit") and third review (anyone can write a review on IMDb, which is where it came from). I suggest waiting a few days to see if evidence to the contrary shows up here, and if not, go ahead and change it to "basement". Cheers! Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My memory is also that there are a sufficient number of steps to qualify the area in question as a basement (or cellar!). If you have a copy of the film at hand, Gwen, and are referencing a specific viewing of this scene (that is, not your general memory, like I am), that's good enough for me.—DCGeist (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have the movie on my computer (and, no worries, I've got the legally purchased DVD!) Anyway, yes, I've been counting for the last couple of minutes and now I think User:Ward3001 and I are each "half right" (so to speak). Maynard clearly takes at least six loud steps up the wooden stairs when he goes back into the public area to open the door for Zed, but no way is it more than seven steps. This would be a "half-basement." Moreover, I don't see any evidence, from the body turns and gazes, that anyone is going back under the public area. Hence, both "back room" or "basement" are a bit off, but not altogether wrong. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paying Jimmy

I think it's unambiguous Wolf is paying Jimmy for more than the linens: Wolf says Jimmy's "Uncle Marcellus" is "buying" him and Bonnie an oak bedroom set and starts quickly peeling off hundred dollar bills. Also, the expression on Tarantino's face is a bit too over-awed for someone getting repaid for some bed coverings. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?! They're just really nice linens....

No, your interpretation is certainly correct. Good catch.—DCGeist (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of List of Pulp Fiction characters proposal

• Disagree - the list of characters article is too long and would make this article much too lengthy. --P shadoh (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - far too long for one page, should be kept apart. Jonesy702 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - It would be too long, but equally the cast section in the main article needs to be drastically cut down, as the detail is in the other article. Ged UK (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - This page is long enough as it is. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Protection of Children

Having taught Pulp Fiction in college since it was available, and having seen the film at least 30 times, I have come to see one argument stand out before all others: the protection of children. In all three stories, we can infer the problem of violence for children. The argument also indicates a surprising conservative, family-values background for the film.

In Butch's story, Fabienne wants a pot-belly and pregnancy, and Butch fully redeems himself when he retires from his criminal life to, we can assume, have a child with her. An innocent, she passively civilizes him and makes him gentle, and his rescue of Marcellus fulfills that, if bloodily. Especially fine in his story is the evocation of children when he goes after his watch: the ice-cream truck bells and the children's voices in the apartment courtyard--slaughter is coming, we fear--and our relief that it does not happen is a fine turn of Aristotle's catharsis.

In Jules' story, he is, famously, "the finder of lost children". Note how he focuses on Marvin, the lost child, when he first repeats his execution speech; the second time is to Ringo, another lost child. Jules saves, or attempts to save, them both. Marvin's lack of opinion in Vincent's miracle dispute requires his death in the simple tragedy of the film, for opinion is what we need to have, though not necessarily agreement with either Jules or Vincent. That we are intended to agree with Jules shows the essentially conservative nature of the film and reflects the abiding family-values argument.

For Vincent, his refusal to recognize the divine sign that Jules accepts warrants his death, as does his negligent killing of Marvin; again, the conservative agenda is asserted. Aside from Marvin, children figure in his story in two ways: he and Mia are teenagers, wed at Jack Rabbit Slim's, although tragically, given their lives; implicating her as well, Mia's tomato joke, with Baby Tomato squashed by an angry father, reflects Vincent's failure to recognize the ethical error of his ways.

Tarantino and Avary appear not to have intended the child motif. I have found nothing to indicate that they consciously chose to include it as any kind of story at all. It is unmistakably there, however, and the film is not only richer for it but incapable of being fully understood without seeing it. Whether Tarantino and Avary are family-values conservatives is another argument, but certainly no one would object to their condemnation of violence, ironic though it is.

David Heinimann (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Script

I don't think the script and the film are the same work, but akin, hence, any plot elements or character descriptions from the script which are not specifically identifiable in the film don't belong in a description of the film. However, perhaps a section on the script would be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)