Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)#Recent infobox edits

There's a duplicate template in the article: "pp-pc", "pp-pc|small=yes". JacktheBrown (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to comment on the following sentence in the section titled "Analysis and controversies", subsection "Historical portrayal":

"After the attack on Scarlett in the shanty town, a group of men, including Ashley and Scarlett's husband Frank, raid the town; in the novel, they belong to the Ku Klux Klan, representing the common trope of protecting the white woman's virtue, but the filmmakers consciously neutralize the presence of the Klan in the film by simply referring to it as a "political meeting".[110]"

While this text is correctly retelling what the cited source says, the problem here is that the author of the cited source doesn't seem to remember the film. Scarlett's assailant is a white man (there's a black man with him, but he's not the active assailant). In the scene immediately after, they refer to the assailant as part of the "carpetbaggers" (that is, white, if I'm not mistaken). In the scene after the raid when the men are back home with the women, Rhett Butler says that, when he arrived, Ashley and the others had already had "a squirmish with the yankees" (that is, again, a squirmish with white men in the Southerners' jargon, if I'm not mistaken again).

I don't know about the novel, but, as I said, the author of the source we're citing doesn't seem to remember the film. While we're not explicitly mentioning the KKK's anti-black vigilantism in this sentence, the implication to any casual reader is clear and doesn't represent well these particular scenes of the film, I think. By mentioning the KKK, the cited source frames these scenes within a conflict between whites and blacks, but this conflict is not present in these particular scenes of the film.

It's not that "the filmmakers consciously neutralize the presence of the Klan in the film by simply referring to it as a 'political meeting'," as we're saying in the article, because the aggressor is not even black and no one in the film views this as a problem with blacks. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:The attack on Scarlett and the subsequent revenge attack by the KKK (along with the motivation) is accurately depicted by the film. It is made explicitly clear by Melanie in the book that the raid is in retaliation for what happened to Scarlett. The raid is intercepted by the Yankees and Frank is shot dead. Margaret Mitchell adds an interesting dimension by making one of the attackers white, and also by having a black man save her—both of which are overlooked by Frank and Ashley. It is made clear in the novel that Rhett was not part of the raid, and this appears to also be the case in the film, so this part has been misrepresented. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::The film deliberately departs from the book in this respect, as was Selznick's wish (expressed in his memos, which have been published). This article is about the film, not the book. No reference to the KKK is made in the film. There is no revenge attack from the KKK in the film; that is in the book from what you wrote (I haven't read the book), but not in the film.

::The fragment from this Wikipedia article that I copied here doesn't say that the active assailant was a white man, and from the context of what our article says and doesn't say, a casual reader might think that the film shows a black agressor and white "gentlemen" react to that, which is not what the film depicts. And, again, this is about the film, not the book. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:::We are not summarizing the film, we are summarizing someone's interpretation of the film, who is discussing the events of the plot in terms of the concessions that the film makes in the context of its racial politics. Clearly the plot of the film and how it deviates from the book (and whether it deviates) is an area of conjecture. Given that the film follows the sequence of events in the book very closely in this regard, just because they omit Melanie's clarification does not mean the raid was not carried out in revenge for what happened to Scarlett. Many people of that era were already familiar with the book, and that would have weighed into their interpretation of many of the scenes that Selznick chose to make less overt. The fact that Selznick decided to not explicitly reference the KKK indicates he was attempting to downplay some of the books more controversial elements, but at the same time he did not provide an alternative explanation from the raid, negating the reason from the book. Ruiz' interpretation of the sequence of events as depicted in the film is perfectly plausible, and is not negated by anything we see in the film. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::The movie provides an explanation for the raid. In one or two scenes it's commented how some areas are becoming dangerous. No racial comments are made in these scenes of the film. Then comes the assault on Scarlett (primarily by a white man, accompanied by a black man in a less menacing or active role, if memory doesn't fail me or my perception wasn't somehow wrong).

::::Scarlett's "saviour" is a black man, who accompanies Scarlett home, where the black man has some dialogue with Scarlett's husband if I remember correctly. Then a group of white men decide to get their guns and go on a raid. Not against blacks, no racial comments are made in these scenes of the film either. The alusion to "a political meeting" is only made by Melania as a made-up alibi to protect their men from the "yankee" guards.

::::I gather from your comments that the book depicts something else, and I know from history that nastier things happened. But this is a fictional movie and what we see in these scenes is more or less what I have just told. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::The film depicts the events as they are in then book. Scarlett is attacked riding through the shanty town by a poor white man accompanied by a black man. She is saved by Polk, a former black slave. Frank and Ashley and some of their Klan buddies raid the town in retaliation but are intercepted by Yankees, and Frank is shot in the head. The events in the film play out virtually the same way. I don't understand what your point is, or what you are objecting to. This is what the article says, in summarizing the Ruiz source: {{quote| After the attack on Scarlett in the shanty town, a group of men, including Ashley and Scarlett's husband Frank, raid the town; in the novel, they belong to the Ku Klux Klan, representing the common trope of protecting the white woman's virtue, but the filmmakers consciously neutralize the presence of the Klan in the film by simply referring to it as a "political meeting".}} The events in the film are a verbatim depiction of the events in the book, except for one detail, which the author notes is the obfuscation of Frank and Ashley belonging the KKK. That is a perfectly valid interpretation, and it is not our role as editors to question its validity. Betty Logan (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::In the film there's not even a "political meeting", because that's just an alibi they make up for Melanie to tell the yankees (and for keeping Scarlett in the dark, if I remember correctly). My point is that we're telling this in a way that gives the wrong impression to the readers that in these scenes there's a conflict between whites and blacks and that the agresor was black in the film. That's the way the cited source tells it, but we don't need to reproduce the same error just because a source commits this error. The source also commits the error of including Rhett Butler among the participants in the raid, but we don't reproduce this error, we correct it. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::"Political meeting" is clearly a euphemism for a Klan raid. What you are attempting to do here is not correct a clear narrative inaccuracy, but rather you a disagreeing with someone else's interpretation. The depiction of the events in the film follow the description of events in the book verbatim, except for one important difference: reference to the Ku Klux Klan is replaced by reference to a "political meeting". What you are saying is that the source is incorrect to interpret this as an oblique reference/euphemism for the KKK. This is outside your prerogative as an editor. Not only is the source entitled to offer this interpretation, it is actually a common interpretation that enjoys wide consensus:

:::::::* Trying to erase any sign of the Klan in Gone with the Wind, Selznick uses the phrase “political meeting” instead of the “Klan meeting.” [https://is.muni.cz/th/emfl4/ba_thesis.pdf]

:::::::* The only kind of political meeting he would have gone to would have been a Klan meeting," he explains. "I must have watched Gone With the Wind how many times before I noticed that where the Klan is off-screen?" [https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2018/aug/10/willmott-on-blackkklansman-20180810/]

:::::::* The “political meeting”, as it is alluded to in the film, attended by these well-meaning Southern citizens, was in fact a vigilanti raid on Shanty Town carried out by the Ku Klux Klan, a reference which is omitted in the film but not in the novel. [https://repositorio.ulisboa.pt/bitstream/10451/11835/1/0873-0628_2014-007-000_00133-00153.PDF]

:::::::* I want to focus on two scenes of rape: one that critics have traditionally discussed in relation to race, and a second that has been treated in the context of gender. The first is the attack on Scarlett as she drives through Shantytown on the way to her mill, the catalyst for the clandestine “political meeting,” which in the film remains an unnamed and unmasked version of the Klan that burns down Shantytown to “protect ” southern women. [https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/236/edited_volume/chapter/1884348]

:::::::* Producer David O. Selznick, a liberal Jew, did temper Mitchell’s vision somewhat, banning the N-word but allowing a lot of references to “darkies.’’ There is no direct reference in the film to the Ku Klux Klan, but it’s still pretty clear that the unseen “political meeting’’ that Rhett and Ashley attend after the attack on Scarlett involves the activities of vigilantes in white sheets. [https://nypost.com/2015/06/24/gone-with-the-wind-should-go-the-way-of-the-confederate-flag/]

:::::::Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The last source again reproduces not only the error that a political meeting occurs in the film (instead of the allusions to it being a made-up alibi), but that Rhett attends that non-existing (in the film) political meeting (Rhett is not even part of the initial made-up alibi, although later that alibi is changed to Rhett and the others being with Belle Waitling). It might even be that Selznick himself ended up not remembering what really is depicted and not depicted in the film. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You are hung up on this particular detail. Rhett's involvement/non-involvement is clearly important to an accurate relaying of the plot summary (which is why I did not object to the correction of this detail) but just because some people have misremembered this aspect does not alter the overall interpretation of the events. The last source does not reproduce the error that a "political meeting" occurs in the film: the source is very clear that the phrase "political meeting" is a euphemism for a Klan raid, and clarifies that the raid is "unseen". Betty Logan (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::If, as you wrote, " 'political meeting' is clearly a euphemism for a Klan raid", how could Ashley, Frank, Melanie and the others be so dumb of using it as an alibi so that the yankee guards don't think that the men are participating in a Klan raid? And the audience that went to see the movie would think "what a silly piece of scriptwriting", I guess?

::::::::::"Hello, yankee guards, my husband and his friends are not participating in a raid; they are in a political meeting [which is a euphemism for a Klan raid]." So, everybody is supposed to understand the euphemism except for the Yankee military of the era. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1267351791 This edit] is not acceptable, and certainly not backed up by the discussions here. Your edit also fundamentally misrepresents the point the source is making: that is the presence of the Klan is not "omitted" from the film, but rather direct mention of it is obfuscated by an oblique reference to a "political meeting". If you are able to provide a reliable source that offers a different interpretation/meaning for what is denoted by a political meeting then that can be incorporated into the article, but it is not our prerogative as editors to disagree with a reliably sourced interpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::There are thousands of sources, and it is our job not to choose low-quality sources and reproduce the errors that these low-quality sources commit, when these errors are made clear by logical reasoning and statement of the facts.

::::::::::::But I stop here. I thought this would be easier. If I had known how difficult it would be, I would certainly not have started this thread. I have the feeling you didn't read more than a third of what I wrote, because you haven't replied to any of the really meaningful and very simple points I made, only to tangential, convoluted recreations of what you imagined I was writing. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:: "It is made clear in the novel that Rhett was not part of the raid" Hardly surprising. The novel makes it a point that Rhett maintains working relationships with the Reconstruction-era military authorities, which is why his business interests are thriving despite the political changes since the war. He is pretty much the stereotypical scalawag of the era, though he is motivated primarily by self-interest rather than any political ideology. Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking advises against over-linking. The general rule of thumb—certainly in film articles—is to link once in the lead and at the first occurrence after the lead. Exceptions are usually made for infoboxes and tables, and can be made for image captions. The guidelines allows terms to be linked up to once (at most) per major section. This is not license to link every single term in every single section. It is obviously beneficial to link the cast again the "cast" section, but it is not necessary to link the cast in every subsequent section thereafter. There is very little utility in linking cast members in the critical reception section, for example, and you just end up with a "sea of blue". The "link once in the lead, once in the body, and once in the relevant section" approach is a long-standing feature of the article, and was in place when the article was assessed for GA status. If editors think there are good reasons for linking every linkable term in every section then they should make their case on the talk page first to see if other editors agree with them. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It appears a dispute that originated at another article has spilled over into this article. It seems that {{u|Clarityfiend}} challenged {{u|Ariadne000}} about overly long image captions at The Day the Earth Stood Still. The discussion can be viewed at User_talk:Ariadne000#Film_captions. Clarityfiend provided several examples of articles which exhibited good practice, this article being one of those. Ariadne000 subsequently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)&oldid=1291487093 added a dozen photos with overly long captions]. I find Ariadne000's general approach to editing problematic, but I will just focus on the editorial problems:

1. I agree with Clarityfiend's view that overly long captions usually reflect poor practice per MOS:CAPSUCCINCT. In my experience, overly long captions are usually symptomatic of problems with the article body, or maybe the image's lack of relevance to the sourced commentary of the article.
2. Ariadne000 argues that "because GWTW is so iconic, photos are warranted". There is no policy or guideline based rationale for such justification. There needs to be an encyclopedic purpose for including an image per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: "Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding". While a couple of the photos have encyclopedic value, in that they would useful to illustrate sourced commentary, the general deployment here is primarily decorative.
3. Just because the images are available and free doesn't mean we have to use them. There has been no regard for the aesthetic of the value, or how it may look on somebody else's screen (see the screencap here: https://postimg.cc/JG1MVWSY). A lot of care was taken in the positioning of images and files throughout the article e.g. the music file was placed in the music section, the reissue poster in the "Later releases" section, the premier photo in the "Premiere" section and so on. By jamming this many photos into the article, the original photos and files are no longer correctly aligned with the relevant section. To maintain this alignment across different resolutions, images were limited to one per section.

Ariadne000 is displaying a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1291483046 their edit summary] referred to me as a "bogus" account that "doesn't get an opinion". I have been around well over decade and took this article through its GA review. Every editor is entitled to an opinion, but I am the editor best placed to explain the original design decisions. I would urge them to make their case here for the encyclopedic value of the images they wish to add, and if there is a consensus to add them then we can look at integrating them into the article rather than simply dumping them and destroying the aesthetic of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I endorse the status quo. The other editor is in no position to be humored at all, judging from their inappropriate conduct. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I second an endorsement of the status quo. I find Ariadne is contributing in bad faith and overloading an article with excessive images does more harm than good for our readers, especially on smaller screens. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have also filed a report at WP:ANEW#User:Ariadne000 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: ). — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)