Talk:Terrence Malick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where was he born!?[edit]

Well was he born in Waco, Texas or Ottawa, Illinois!?

This is the first (and appears to be uncited) reference to him being born in Ottawa, Illinois. I'm looking into it now. Liontamarin (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://movies.nytimes.com/person/100893/Terrence-Malick/biography Lists him as being born both in Ottawa and Waco.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2005-12-15-malick_x.htm USA Today says Waco, exclusively. http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2004/11/04/Entertainment/You-Should.Know.About.terrence.Malick-792745.shtml Daily Texan cites Waco, Texas. http://www.austinfilm.org/terrence-malick Austin Film Society says Waco.

There seems to be some confusion as to his birthplace, and I'm changing the article to reflect that. Liontamarin (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My changes to where he was born have been reverted due to one source (Ephraim Katz's Film Encyclopedia). It think, while it may be considered an authoritative source, that it is obvious that there is confusion as other authoritative sources (New York Times and USA Today) either contradict or confuse the issue. I think it would be unfair to give prejudice to one source when it is clear that there is confusion surrounding the issue from various, legitimate and citable sources. In the hopes of not starting an edit war, I'll wait to see if there is a discussion, but if there isn't a consensus it seems only fair to revert back to acknowledge, as many other wikipedia articles have, the contradiction in sources. Especially as there does not appear to be a single, popular winner. Liontamarin (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katz is far more authoritative for this kind of information. Furthermore, Katz explains that Malick was born in one place and raised in another, which makes understandable the confusion found in some other, less careful, sources, such as newspapers. The other sources give no indication that they have actually gone out and researched the information, whereas it is hard to explain what Katz writes in any way other than that he has found out this information in some definitive way. One would not write, "X was born in Y and raised in Z" unless one was fairly sure it was the case. Given that there is a plausible explanation for how the other sources may have got it wrong (misled by the fact he was raised in Texas into thinking he was born there, or misled by other sources which were themselves misled in this way), it seems clear to me that Wikipedia should take Katz as authoritative in this matter, until such time as a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise. Mtevfrog (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"it is hard to explain what Katz writes in any way other than he has found out this information in some definitive way." That sounds kind of sketchy to me, but also your claim that the New York TIMES or USA Today do not fact check. I would say, actually, that the New York TIMES and USA Today would be considered far more reputable sources than Katz. It is NOT hard to explain that Katz could have found out the information in some non-definitive way, because he could very well be using an outside source that has flawed information, just as you are suggesting my sources are flawed in some way. Also, to earmark one source as definitive and ignore the fact that there is significant confusion among many, many other sources about where the subject of the article was born is to leave out significant information about the subject. Other biographical articles mention disparities in birthdates and birth places, so I feel that the precedent is set for us to do the same, until a REAL definitive source comes through (like an interview with Terrence Malick). I think both of us would be hard pressed to find a "definitive" piece of evidence, given Malick's noted reclusion, whichi s all the more reason to give his birthplace as "either" Waco or Ottawa, as so many other sources of repute have. Liontamarin (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO, your version (and I'm assuming the Katz version) leaves out all mention of Waco, Texas, stating he moved directly from Ottawa to Austin. It seems funny that Waco is left out entirely when that isn't the case in any other mention, even those that list Ottawa as his birthplace. This is incongruous with the majority of information (that I have seen) about the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liontamarin (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Katz states: "Born on Nov. 30, 1943, in Ottawa, Ill. The son of an oil-company executive, he was raised in Waco and Austin, Texas, and Bartlesville, Oklahoma." So you are incorrect about Katz leaving out Waco, and it seems as though you are fishing to find reasons to doubt Katz. I find your argument unconvincing: Katz definitely gives me the impression he knows where Malick was born and where he was raised, with greater detail and more specific information than the other sources. Mtevfrog (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what impression Katz gives. Just because it is confidently written does not mean that it is not as faulty as any other information. There's not reason to be going on and on about this, multiple, reputable sources state two different points of view on the subject. We should present this fact in the article, as is done with other articles. It is not our job to attempt to guess which source is reputable or not. The argument here is not about presenting a definite fact, because the FACT remains that there is, among other source-able material, a difference of opinion about where he was born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liontamarin (talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with being "confidently written." Do whatever pleases you, but I believe Wikipedia is the poorer for it. Mtevfrog (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another source for Ottowa, Illinois (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/jul/03/observer-profile-terrence-malick). This one explicitly states that he was not born in Waco. I've also changed it to "Ottowa or Waco" rather than "Waco or Ottowa". Caek (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Guardian article explicitly clears up the confusion. Here's a source[1] that also mentions which street he lived on in Texas. Also, the NYT article that is cited for his alleged birth in Texas actually says both Ottawa and Waco at different places in the same biography, but in the "Birthplace" field, it says Ottawa. Something makes me think they found more reliable information and changed that field, but did not change where it mentions Texas in the article. Anyway, with an article claiming that he wasn't born in Waco, I'm changing the birthplace from "Waco or Ottawa" to Ottawa. Someone please let me know if I've missed or overlooked something in this thread. --BittenFig♻talk 21:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the "early life" portion where it claimed that he was born in "Ottawa or Waco" to Ottawa. It matches his birthplace in the bio box. Jzapata95 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and The Tree of Life[edit]

Not sure if this article should reflect the current gossip about the film, whatever it might be, unless there is some real evidence for it. I looked for some but did not find anything substantial. I would guess a piece in Variety or some industry mag. would be great, but all I found was this at 'Ain't it cool news': http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=20485. The same could be said about other bits of info, e.g. "According to The New World producer Sarah Green..."

Since Malick is such a mysterious figure I would think some citations, beyond the references, would help this article, and also give readers some direction if they want to do more research or reading on malick. --Gottg135 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian-American TO Lebanese-American[edit]

Please do not change Assyrian-American TO Lebanese-American if you do not have any proof

--67.166.133.88 02:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The proof that he is of LEBANESE descent is in Lloyd Michaels' biography of Terrence Malick published in 2009 by the University of Illinois Press. See Terrence Malick online particularly p.14. Besides this proof, 'Malik' is a prominent Lebanese family - the most famous perhaps was Charles Malik who - curiously - also studied philosophy at Harvard. See his entry in Wikipedia for more info. JAR (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Though they are hard to find, there are availible photographs. Please post a photograph of Mallick.

Overlong? Is this accurate?[edit]

The following sentence in the artcicle is possibly misleading:

"complaints that his films, although beautiful, are often overlong and ponderous"

Quite to the contrary, Badlands and Days of Heaven are noted for their brevity (both run at 90 minutes). I agree that criticism of over-length have been applied to his last two features (which, hey let's face it, were bloody long). Perhaps this distinction should be made? Strummer72 09:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian or Lebanese?[edit]

Which is it? Sounds Lebanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.126.81 (talk)


  • Assyrian is an archaic term when labeling people from that nation. Assyria = ancient civilization, centuries old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs) 
--
  • Assyrian are still arond, if you do not know your history, please stop spreading lies, that Assyrian are something of the past. --67.166.133.88 02:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.zindamagazine.com
http://www.aina.org
http://www.nineveh.com
http://www.cired.org
http://www.betnahrain.com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.133.88 (talk)

  • I am sorry to inform you but Terrence Malick "Terry Malik" is an Assyrian.

http://www.zindamagazine.com/html/archives/1999/feb1_1999.htm#Anchor-BRAVO --67.166.133.88 12:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't seem to understand: I'm not denying that people of "Assyrian" ancestry don't exist. I'm saying that "Lebanese" is now the proper term for them. It's just like how "Persians" became "Iranians." Persian and Assyrian, like Mesopotamian or Celtic or Visigoth, etc. are old and archaic terms. Look up ARCHAIC in the dictionary.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs) 06:52, 11 August 2006

  • Modern Assyrian are not called Labanese, they are known throughout the world as Assyrian and in ancient world Ashurian or Ashuraya even the name Assyrian come from Ashurian look up the greek Assyrous.
  • Another thing when you are in Iran, try to call any of them Iranian and see what they say, they always refer to them self as Persions not Iranian.
  • Labanese are of canan/phonecian descent.

some Labenese like the Maronite and the Jacobites are full blooded Assyrian that moved thier.

--67.166.133.88 02:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Also, "Zinda magazine" is not known trustworthy source, it's some obscure ethnic newsletter. Yahoo Movies, on the other hand is:

"Father: Emil Malick. worked for Phillips Petroleum; of Lebanese ancestry"

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800021157/bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 06:52, 11 August 2006 (talk • contribs) Kitrus

"Lebanese" is the proper term for them? Assyrians are dispersed throughout the world; so what would you call an Assyrian from India? Lebanese? What made you classify Assyrians as Lebanese? Why not African or Chinese? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zingo (talk • contribs)

The Yahoo Movies article says his father is OF LEBANESE ANCESTRY. End of Story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs)

No way, I met the guy my self and he is an second generation Assyrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esarhaddon (talk • contribs)



  • Well, can you give the sources that state he is a Labenese. I want the original source, not the Yahoo or any other entertainment news agency. --67.166.133.88 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yahoo is an extremely reputable source. Don't ask me to explain why. I know you're not that stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs)

It doesn't make sense calling an ethnic Assyrian from Lebanon, Lebanese when he hasn't even born in that country. "Lebanese" is not a ethnicity, its a nationality. Chaldean 08:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • He's not "ethnic Assyrian", so please stop stating this as if it's a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs)

READ THIS

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060828/24042.htm

Any more questions go ahead and contact his cousin (She an Assyrian) and ask her. www.rosiemalek-yonan.com --Esarhaddon 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the tally- First, you called me a liar and go ahead and edit the article without providing citations. Then, when you do provide a citation it's a weblink to an obscure online ethnic newsletter (Zindamagazine.com), all the while reverting my edits. Next, one of you claims to have personally met him, amid more reverting. I then provide a respected, acknowledged source to the table that clearly states the Malick is HALF-IRISH, HALF-LEBANESE. That source is Yahoo News which aggregates news from established outlets like Associated Press and Reuters. And most recently you add a news "source": Christian Post, which says that his cousin (!) claims they're all Assyrian. Then you ask me to contact his cousin to make sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs)
Are you really trying to find his real identity or do you want just to argue with me. The source that I provided you was recently add to the christianpost.com by Rosie-Malek-Yonan, witch in her testimony before congress and under oath said she is an Assyrian, and she also stated that her cousin Terrence Malick, was instrumental in helping her get to DC for her testimony. Her whole testimony is online in text and in video stated in the article that I provided to you. Now, the source that I provided for you was written by Rosie Malek-Yonan, her recent book, "The Crimson Field," is a historical Lit that talk about the Assyrian massacre in 1915, Rosie went to washington to testify before Congress about the current satuation of Assyrian in the Middle East and more specificaly in Northern Iraq. The website that I post for rosie Malek Yonan was her official website, I gave you the address so you can send her an email and ask her directly if she is realy an Assyrian and Terrence Malick is her cousin, even againt the the recent source that I provided. -- Esarhaddon 07:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying that an Assyrian ethnicity exists and that they've been persecuted and that Rosie M. Yonan is one. What I'm saying is this: you have still failed to provide a trustworthy source that states that film director Terrence Malick is not half-Irish, half-Lebanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs)


Why are you people debating something when you don't have enough information to come to an accurate conclusion? Just because someone fails to provide proof that he is NOT half Lebanese and half Irish doesn't mean that he is IS half Lebanese and half Irish... People, unless he tells the public what his ethnic background is then we should just leave the subject alone. One thing that IS true is that you do not call yourself Lebanese unless you were born in that country or your parents, grandparents, etc. were born in Lebanon. Plus, if my parents were Italian but I was born in Lebanon I wouldn't say I am Lebanese.... I would say I am Italian. If you were born in the US you basically call yourself what your ethnic background is... Assyrian, Persian, Caldean.... all of these ethnicities are spread over a region... Persians, for example, are found in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. So, if you weren't born in those countries but your parents, grandparents, ancestors, etc. were then you would simply say, "I'm Persian" Get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.38.30.145 (talk)

You haven't been paying attention. Read my posts before making comments like this. For the umpteenth time: My source is Yahoo News. Yahoo News reports that he is Lebanese on his father's side and Irish on his mother's side. How hard is that to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs)


I don't have to provide you witha source that say he is not that or that, how often that happen in a article. If his cousin is Assyrian and she said that she is an Assyrian and related to Terrence Malick, would'nt that make his identity Assyrian. One more thing, I wonder where did Yahoo News get thier Biography of him from. --24.10.117.56 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're questioning Yahoo News as a source? What source are you going to question next, The New York Times? Washington Post? We might as well start supporting our evidence by word of mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs)


As much credible Yahoo News is, it does not hold up to a testimony before a hearing and under oath. I have provided you with two sources that state the obvious and the only thing you can do is repeat your self.

If you do not precent actual evident, maybe a testimony, and you change my post back to Labenese-American I will have to lock this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.69.105 (talk)

So now you're suggesting that we hold the writer of the Yahoo News piece "up to a testimony before a hearing and under oath"?
I have had to repeat myself because you and others have failed to understand or comprehend the arguments I repeated over and over. "The obvious" is this: The source I provided (Yahoo News) is credible and reputable and you have even admitted so, while the sources you have provided are not (you have yet to argue against this).
Finally, what in the world makes you think you have the final say in this, especially since you're not even a registered editor? If anything, I should lock the page, but I have the decency and tolerance not to. Why don't you instead bring a neutral moderator in and hear our arguments out and have him/her decide? --Kitrus 20:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that 'Assyrian' and 'Lebanese' are mutually exclusive. shotwell 06:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, slow down a little Don't invest so much emotional capital into the discussion. Don't do personal attacks, it only weakens your case. There's no use threatening to lock the articles when you're not even a admin. It doesn't matter who right, only what's right. In fact, even more important than that, is that discussions go forth in a calm and civil matter.

There's greater shame to stick to the wrong answer, than to admit that you're wrong.

I suggest that those involved try to really look into the opinons of your fellow editors. We're all here to try to make an already great encyclopedia better. We might argue, but the goal here is the same, finding out (one might argue trivial matter) of what ethnicity Terrence Malick has. And once you arrive at a conclusion, forget this and move on.

(For some relevant guidelines/policies see: Wikipedia:Civility, and further Wikpedia:Assume good faith)

I realise I may not be clever at resolving disputes, but I'll try the best I can helping out on this. Delta Tango | Talk 22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delt-
I agree. The problem is that around a dozen Assyrian editors (registered and unregistered) have reverted my edits on a near daily basis, despite my having asked them to talk it out on the Talk page. They have presented no new arguments and they have yet to refute my source. As of now, Terrence Malick is Lebanese.--Kitrus 06:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks delt for taking this case, I hope we can start with facts and ends with facts, Kitrus it's your turn, present your facts to Delta and I will follow. -- Esarhaddon 16:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • First, I just want to say I'm not a mediator in any official sense. Here's my take on this, I would like to know what you guys think about this.
As shotwell points out, they don't need to be mutually exclusive. I've been looking around at articles about ethnicity and Lebanon here on WP. The encyclopedia of the Orient entry on Assyrians state that there are around around 5000 (0,2%) of those living in Lebanon are Assyrian.
1) So only a small distinguished part of Lebanon are Assyrian.
2) So if somebody is both, that might be worth pointing out.
3) Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Terrence have:
a) a mother of Irish decent?
b) a father who's an ethnic Assyrian of Lebanese decent? (remember, not mutually exclusive!!!)
and 4) Maybe we could say that Terrence Malick is an American film director of Irish and Assyrian Lebanese decent.


Are there any points above any of you agree or disagree on? (I'd rather have you both disagree with me, than to disagree with each other. ;-) Delta Tango | Talk 19:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Kitrus and Delta I have some recent photo email that may solve this problem. Look at the following two photo email that I upload recently. Rosie Yonan 1 and Rosie Yonan 2 --Esarhaddon 01:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If no body will reponsd I will revert the article on 12/01/06, I post to Email photos that will solve this problem --67.172.179.192 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the entry on Scorsese begins "Martin Scorsese is an acclaimed American film director," so too should the Malick entry say he is "an American film director" (I'd add the acclaimed too). Anything else is well short of an encyclopedia entry. If his parental ancestry is relevant, it can be discussed elsewhere in the entry. He is an American film director. Mtevfrog 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Here's a RELIABLE source: Lloyd Michaels' biography of Terrence Malick (entitled Terrence Malick) published in 2009 by the University of Illinois Press particularly p.14: "This much we know about Terrence Malick. He was born on November 30, 1943 in Ottawa, Illinois, the eldest son of Emil, a geologist of Lebanese descent ('Malick' means 'King' in Lebanese), and Irene who grew up on a farm near Chicago." Why are you deliberately erasing that aspect of his background? and please "--67.166.133.88 02:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)" be more accurate in your diagnosis of the Lebanese people, spare us generalities and cliches and to start with spell the term 'Lebanese' correctly. JAR (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malick's Picture[edit]

Can someone please source the Malick photo? I uploaded it, but I'm not sure how to credit the image to remove the deletion warning. Please do this within one week of Oct. 14, 2006. Thanks. --Anon. 05:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The man is a living genius and he doesn't even have his own website.

Deleting unnecessary reference to Malick's ethnicity[edit]

Quoting Mtevfrog:

::Just as the entry on Scorsese begins "Martin Scorsese is an acclaimed American film director," so too should the Malick entry say he is "an American film director" (I'd add the acclaimed too). Anything else is well short of an encyclopedia entry. If his parental ancestry is relevant, it can be discussed elsewhere in the entry. He is an American film director. Mtevfrog 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We should stop this edit war and keep ethnicity out of this article. A number of non-Assyrian editors agree with me on this. Problem resolved.--Kitrus 00:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If people can agree on this; fine. In the #Biography section, you may write out in full all the relevant ethnic ancestries. Doesn't he have an Irish mother and a Assyrian Lebanese father? If this is so, we can write this out in full so nobody has to disagree. This will be sort of a compromise there seems to be no reason to disagree with. Delta Tango • Talk 07:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His ethnicity is important, I have my third confirmation that his father is Assyrian and his mother is Irish, Labanese is no where in the picture, check the two photo-email that I posted that I got from his cousin. I will except the following.
Rosie Yonan Malick 1 Rosie Yonan Malick 2Esarhaddon 00:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Delta Tango. Even though your evidence remains insufficient (their is no way to verify whether you digitally altered that Screenshot), I would be fine with "Assyrian Lebanese", since Assyrian is an ethnic group and Lebanese is a nationality, and it does happen to be the case that his father is a Lebanese national. I think this should be (way) more than enough to appease the Assyrian editors. --Kitrus 00:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rosie Malick said about Terrance: Due to her expertise on the ongoing Assyrian Genocide, as evident from her book, The Crimson Field, on the suggestion of famed Oscar winning director, Terrence Malick, in 2006 Malek-Yonan testified on Capitol Hill about the plight of the Assyrian Christians in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.168.241 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think so, the only think you have provided is a link to Yahoo Movies and I asked you for the source of that or at least where yahoo get their info about TM being a Labenese national. I have provided you with three pieces of evidence and you are still are not convinced. I will send both the email posted on this section to see for your self that they are not alterd. His father has nothing to do with Lebanon, he was born in Urmia, Iran. Also TM natiolity is American not Labenese, and even "if" his father nationlity is Labenese that does not make TM nationality Labanese, he was born in American. Esarhaddon 01:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     Nationility: American
     Ethnicity: Assyrian-Irish
     
     PS:Post your email here or email me your email to esarhaddon@walla.com so I can send both emails.

I absolutely agree with this and have removed the Assyrian/Lebanese heritage from the intro. A great many American directors have parents or grandparents who are not American. When they make films that deal with their ethnicity (e.g. Scorsese) this might be worth mentioning (although perhaps not in the intro). But in this case, as in many others (Coppola, etc.) it seems totally irrelevant. In this particular case it has resulted in edit-warring in return for no noticeable improvement in the article. I have also removed the translation of his name into Arabic for the same reason (I don't see any translations of "Soderbergh" or "Spielberg"). Please do not restore the text without discussing it here first. Caek (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


FYI: Terrance Malick is indeed an Assyrian not from Lebanon, but from Iran. If you do not believe me check out Crimson Field written by Assyrian actress, writer, and activist Rosie Malick who I have written several letters to myself, and has verified from the family tree of "The Malicks" he is Assyrian from Iran. She gives thanks to her COUSIN whom she has said helped her get to the congress to speak on behalf of the attrocities committed against Assyrians. I have the book, and yes he is her first Assyrian cousin. Also, Assyrians have a use of the Malick name okay? It does not just belong to Lebanese people with all due respect. Malick made Rosie Malicks trip to Congress easy, and it was he who actually made it possible. She has given thanks also in letters regarding this. I have asked her myself and she has said he is her cousin, and Rosie malick as I know is Assyrian 100%. As for Terrance I am not aware of his maternal line, but have heard down the line he is also Irish. So he might have a parent born in Lebanon, but according to the family tree he is originally an assyrian from Iran. Please feel free to write Rosie, and ask. She is very sweet, and will answer your questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.207.24 (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring[edit]

I see that there has been some recent revert-warring on this article, but without corresponding discussion at the talkpage. Please, instead of edit-warring, instead follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As soon as reverting starts, please post a note to the talkpage explaining why you are reverting. This increases the likelihood that a compromise may be found, or that other editors may be able to comment to help define a consensus on how the dispute should be handled. Thanks, --Elonka 21:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life[edit]

This section needs to be verifiable. Please add citations.--Davmpls 03:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Film career[edit]

Section needs to be verifiable. Please add citations.--Davmpls 03:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

Personal life[edit]

Please add citations verifying the facts.--Davmpls 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

This would need to be checked, but I am pretty sure Alexandra W.B. Malick is the same person as "Eckie (sic) Wallace," not a different wife. The correct spelling is "Ecky". Also, Malick was married to a French woman between Jill Jakes and Ecky Wallace, who died in the 1990s of pancreatic cancer.

Bibliography[edit]

Is the section too long?

Do each of these items contain substantial information about Malick?

The following citations should be edited to include page numbers and/or articles and/or chapters since the whole book(s) are not about Malick:

  • Peter Biskind, 1998. Easy Riders / Raging Bulls, London: Bloomsbury.
  • Stanley Cavell, 1979. The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film, Enlarged Edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Michel Chion, 1999. The Voice in Cinema, translated by Claudia Gorbman, New York & Chichester: Columbia University Press.
  • Les Keyser, 1981. Hollywood in the Seventies, London: Tantivy Press.

Dead reference removed:

    1. Liv Torgerson, 1999. ‘Conversations with Billy Weber and Leslie Jones’, Motion Picture Editors Guild Newsletter

--Davmpls 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

Purpleness[edit]

"His work is often characterized by naturalist cinematography" - Can anyone explain what this proposition means? --IRONY-POLICE (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it means, his movies spend a considerable amount of time focusing on plants and animals. By the way, what do you mean by "purpleness"?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Numerous" critics?[edit]

In the opening paragraph, I don't think citing only Roger Ebert counts as "numerous" critics. This definitely sounds like a NPOV problem to me.

De Niro quote on Palm d'Or win[edit]

I've been tidying up the Film career subsection today, adding references and what not. This sentence was added by a previous editor:

Head of the jury, Robert De Niro, said it was difficult to choose a winner, but The Tree of Life "ultimately fit the bill". De Niro explained, "It had the size, the importance, the intention, whatever you want to call it, that seemed to fit the prize."

I love Bobby De Niro, but does this sentence really add to the article? It's pretty bland and probably could have been said about any Palm d'Or winner. Would anyone be opposed to me removing it? A Traintalk 11:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography[edit]

I've changed the title for the upcoming film which had been rumored to be called The Burial to what they refer to it in The Tree of Life press-book. It's better than having a rumored title. TheSecondWaltz (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source for his disagreement with Gilbert Ryle?[edit]

The article currently states that Malick left Oxford after a disagreement with the well-known philosopher Gilbert Ryle. No citation is given, but this is the sort of thing that should really be sourced. Of course, it's no crime to have disagreed with Ryle, but...it might be regarded as a bit of a negative assertion, and so in my opinion it should be kept only if it can be backed up. Does anyone have any more information about this? Kevin Nelson (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has provided a source, I have removed the assertion from the article. Of course, it can be put back in if someone provides a source. Kevin Nelson (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Love Story[edit]

Why doesn't this already-filmed film have its own article? I thought the Wikipedia rules were that as long as something is filming, it could have its own article. This film is in post, with re-shoots. Worthy or not? Thanks all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.177.100 (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best not to create one until enough information is released to build a good article. That's my opinion.TheSecondWaltz (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film has now been titled To the Wonder and has its own Wikipedia entry.

File:TerrenceMalick.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:TerrenceMalick.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should you include Terrence Malick Parents Ancestry[edit]

His father Emil Malick: worked for Phillips Petroleum; and was of Lebanese ancestry and mother Irene Malick: of Irish extraction; originally from the Chicago area should you include this in Terrence Malick Early Life.Total Film Magazine did a story on Terrence Mallick in 2012 and mentioned his mother was of Irish Descent. Source http://sg.movies.yahoo.com/Terrence+Malick/biography/61994/ www.totalfilm.com/ - United Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny 80y (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • His father is not Lebanese. The Malick (also spelled Malek) family is one of the most famous Assyrian families from Urmia, Iran. Zayya 06:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography[edit]

By the dictionary definition, a bibliography is either a list of works about a topic or "a list of works written by an author." The References section in this article could also be called a bibliography under that definition, but since that's a separate section unto itself, that means a section titled Bibliography consists of "works written by an author." An interview is not something "written by" Malick, so the interview would go under References. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker Articles[edit]

I know that most biographies mention him writing for the New Yorker, but this appears to be just an oft-quoted myth. A quick search of the New Yorker archives turns up no articles written by Malick. Not sure how to cite this, but it really seems unlikely that he would write for the magazine in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.170.91 (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon[edit]

According to one of the latest editions of "Vollbild", a film magazine on DR Kultur, Malick is a Mormon (which surprised me, because I always thought he was an esoteric). Maybe this should be included in the article.

Regarding a deleted paragraph in the lead[edit]

Dan56,

The material you deleted was not poorly sourced at all. If a film stands at #8 on TSPDT's list of the 21st century's most acclaimed films, then it stands to reason that many regard the work as one of the great films of the 21st century. The two other sources to have been cited are reliable as well.

Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The source you cited is a self-published source, run by Bill Georgaris ([2]). You're misusing the other sources and going beyond what they actually verify. It's appropriate to use the BBC Culture article to cite the idea that "The Tree of Life was voted the 79th greatest American film of all time in BBC Culture's 2015 poll of 62 international film critics." That's not what you used it for. We're supposed to summarize what sources say in our own words, yes, but not put words in their figurative mouths. And this article is a biography; there's a notice about sources that shows when you edit such an article, warning you about "taking extra care to use high-quality sources". Also, the rest of your summary in that paragraph is not based on what's in the article and requires verification; "Although Malick's films of the 20th century were widely acclaimed, his later films have polarized critics." [and] "his increasing disregard of conventional narrative is criticized as pretentious and self-indulgent by some, while others consider him to have a visionary style and approach"... according to whom? If there is a source that explicitly discusses the reception to Malick's body of work, that would both verify what can be said about it and justify its notability/inclusion to the lead. Dan56 (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TSPDT centers on extensive tabulations of current critical opinion, ones for which the "best-of" lists of various professional film critics and scholars are taken into account. Georgaris is considered by the British Film Institute to be a film critic, and has voting privileges in their decennial Sight & Sound polls. The lists are reliable sources for gauging reception.

You suggest that my edits show I am a fan of Malick, when the material you deleted had arguably made the lead section less biased toward Malick than it now is. The paragraph was written because it includes relevant information (I would change the "were" in "were highly acclaimed" to "are", however) and because it is true: The Tree of Life has now come to be regarded as a high-water mark of 21st century cinema, while his films since are viewed by some as visionary (Matt Zoller Seitz on Knight of Cups: "Nobody else is making films like this. Not at this level…") and by others as indulgent and overly experimental (Peter Travers on To the Wonder: "Film genius to miss the mark […] a beautifully empty exercise") in style and narrative. It states only facts. AndrewOne (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewOne:, what part of original research don't you understand? You clearly didn't read the guidelines I said you ought to. "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". The sources must reach those conclusions, not you. And I suggested you're a fan of Malick because his face is plastered on your user page. Your edits here suggest you don't comprehend what original research is. So you're idea of good research is taking one film critic's quote regarding one of Malick's recent films and using it to support the statement "his films since are viewed by some as visionary", and doing the same for another sentence fragment? How does Peter Travers writing that To the Wonder was a "beautifully empty exercise" verify the "fact" that "others [saw his films] as indulgent and overly experimental in style and narrative"?? Stop it. Either find a source that verifies 'exactly' what you are writing in the lead, or focus your efforts away from the lead, because you're not improving it. Dan56 (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56,

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of summary.

It is normal for the Wikipedia page of a creative work or the author of creative works to state what common areas of praise or criticism among critics are. It is not original research. If anything that did not precisely restate the words of a source was regarded as original research, Wikipedia would not be an encyclopedia; it would be a succession of quotations and bullet points in paragraph form. Take a look at the films' Metacritic pages. Take another look at the TSPDT page that I've mentioned.

Once again, the inclusion of my paragraph had made the page less biased. As the lead section is now, one is left (particularly because of Ebert's quote) with the impression that most critics see Malick as having made only masterpieces. My paragraph gives a truer overview of critical opinion, which is possibly why another user felt that it should have been added back. AndrewOne (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Material needs to exist first in the article for it to be summarized in the lead; it doesn't in this case. TSPDT is not a high-quality source for biographical information on Terrence Malick, and it's a questionable source to begin with (WP:SPS); biographical books on Malick would be great instead. I see Metacritic says Knight of Cups and To the Wonder received "mixed or average reviews" ([3]), The New World received "generally favorable reviews" ([4]), and The Tree of Life received "universal acclaim" ([5]). I don't see how this adds up to "his later films have possessed increasing disregard of conventional narrative and have received divisive responses from critics, with some who criticize his filmmaking to be self-indulgent and meandering, while others praise him for having a visionary style and approach." You keep saying "less biased"; bias involves pushing a particular perspective--in this case, yours--which you are doing. As it is now, one is left with the impression that Roger Ebert felt this way about Terrence Malick. Also, by connecting the clause about Malick's earlier films being acclaim to the clause about his later films receiving divided responses, you're positing a relationship that isn't made by any source. Your summary isn't accurate or neutral, so SYNTH is not summary doesn't apply; you "produced a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources". Dan56 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56,

TSPDT was not used as a source of biographical information on anyone; it was used as a means of determining the acclaim for The Tree of Life. For this it is a reliable source, and has been cited many times as such (on various other film pages). Also, as I have said before, Bill Georgaris is listed by the British Film Institute as a film critic.

As I have said before, biographical articles demand higher-quality sources than the self-published blog of a film critic. Dan56 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint about positing an uncommon relationship is over the top. Once again, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of carbon copies of sources. A paragraph should not be repeatedly deleted for failing to satisfy this demand, because no such guideline or principle exists. AndrewOne (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tree of Life is not the topic of the lead; Malick is. You're too focused on "determining the acclaim" of his movies rather than researching the best sources on the topic of this article, which would tell you what's notable to include in the lead. You're working backwards, and as I said before, stringing along review quotes and Metacritic entries doesn't verify your original thesis. Dan56 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Guardian, "The Tree of Life has divided both critics and ­audiences" ([6]) Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56,

Despite what you've been saying, you've now gone ahead and done just the opposite of what you've been professing; you've gone ahead and added that Badlands and Days of Heaven were critically acclaimed (actually Days of Heaven was very polarizing upon release, despite now being considered a classic), and mentioned that The Thin Red Line and The New World were polarizing (The Thin Red Line would imo be considered critically acclaimed, whearas The New World is polarizing/mixed). I don't necessarily have an opinion, tbh while I think what AndrewOne added was fine I do think the clearer and more minimal as possible would be better, but what you've added is definitely confusing after what you've been saying about AndrewOne's additions. Hadean-mind (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no, I didn't do the opposite of what I've been "professing". I've been professing citing sources for what you add and accurately reflecting what they verify; In The Cinema of Terrence Malick, Hannah Patterson writes regarding Badlands, "the majority of critics at the time of the film's release were in agreement that Badlands was an assured debut, heralding a new and original talent" (p. 3); on the next page, she writes of Days of Heaven, "once again, the film received critical acclaim, winning...". She goes on to write, "The Thin Red Line greatly divided critical opinion" (there is an entire chapter in the book dedicated to critical response to the film). Of The New World, she writes, "the film's critical reception was split". This is just citing the introduction to the book. It'd behoove the both of you to dig deeper in this book if you're interested in improving this article at all, because this paragraph you've added is original research. Dan56 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56,

As I have tried to explain, neither my version nor Hadean-mind's version of the paragraph in question are instances of original research.

While on the subject of initial opinion among critics, however, I should add (though there is nothing wrong with the inclusion of it) that a focus on current opinion is far preferable in lead sections. Studying directors such as Stanley Kubrick will make obvious why this custom should be followed, and the fact of the matter is that all of Malick's films from the 20th century are by now acclaimed works. Even though The Thin Red Line divided critics (to an extent) upon release, it has since grown in stature – as shown by its placements, for example, on the TSPDT top-1000 calculation and the Sight & Sound polls. The Tree of Life is now fairly considered one of the 21st century's major works, while The New World, To the Wonder, and Knight of Cups continue to divide critics (The New World, it would seem, is slowly becoming more celebrated – but that can be left out for now). This is not original research; these are facts. AndrewOne (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"As shown by its placements, for example, on...", "it has since grown in stature" ... this is quite literally the definition of original research; it's not up to you to determine what that is an example of or what those two polls mean for the film. And you continue to overlook the questionable quality of your sources. But it's fine. WP:NOR often eludes even experienced editors: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." You haven't demonstrated this. I feel like I'm communicating with a wall. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56,

It is not original research. If a film initially divides critics but is now (according to TSPDT) one of the 250 most acclaimed films ever made, it has grown in stature. If it hadn't, then it wouldn't now be among the 250 most acclaimed films ever made, would it?

Also, regarding your earlier citation of an article in The Guardian about reception for The Tree of Life: there's no question that the film divided audiences, but the film holds an 85/100 on Metacritic, which translates to acclaim among critics – so if a writer for The Guardian says that it "divided critics", that's frankly a bit of a failing in the journalist. There are some assertions for which an aggregator is a better source than an article (something you seem not to realize). AndrewOne (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're placing too much weight in a film critic's blog because it suggests something favorable in your mind about the film. Here's another source saying the film divided critics (Patheos); according to Lee Caruthers, the film received "divided responses ... for many critics, Malick's project possessed admirable qualities, but remained basically unwieldy or excessive as a cinematic object". And I'll say it again: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." I can do the work for you, but it'd be a shame if nothing is learned from this by you. Dan56 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should AndrewOne's bold edit be kept?[edit]

The consensus is against including this edit per Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material.

Cunard (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The edit in question: None of AndrewOne's sources (two film critics polls) explicitly say The Tree of Life "is among the most acclaimed films of the 21st century", nor are they appropriate sources for a biography article's lead in a paragraph discussing the topic's body of work; the other changes to the prose in AndrewOne's edit introduced material that isn't mentioned in the corresponding citation (emphasis given in italics to the material unfounded in the literature: His work since has divided audiences and critics, however; some find his directorial approach in films such as To the Wonder (2012) and Knight of Cups (2015) to be engaging and unique, while others consider it pretentious ... The source cited doesn't mention either of those films. The previous revision was better researched and sourced, explicitly saying and verifying that Malick's recent films have polarized critics and audiences. Should AndrewOne's edit be kept in the article? Dan56 (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • Yes AndrewOne (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Dan56 (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As written, it's poorly-sourced puffery. With regards to the BBC poll, just report where it ranked on the list. Don't extrapolate that it's one of "the most acclaimed films". This is not neutral enough, and we would need a source to be a lot more explicit than this one is to make such a bold statment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Refer WP:SYNTH where it says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Jschnur (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Summoned by bot. Per WP:SYNTHESIS. None of the sources provided specifically state The Tree of Life "is among the most acclaimed films of the 21st century" or "some find his directorial approach in films such as To the Wonder (2012) and Knight of Cups (2015) to be engaging and unique, while others consider it pretentious". Even if the content was sourced, it doesn't belong in the lead. Meatsgains (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I too was brought here by the feedback request service. A promotional claim like that would need multiple explicit references. Also, this is an article about a person; the lead should summarize his life and career, not focus on details about specific films, which, if well known, will have their own articles.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, textbook synth/OR. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

AndrewOne, you continue to introduce information into the lead that is sourced poorly and in a way that portrays the topic in a more favorable light. The previous revision of the first paragraph had its last two sentences attributed to film scholar David LaRocca's 2014 book The Philosophy of War Films, which explicitly states what it is being used to support; p. 391, feel free to read it, along with Lee Caruthers' essay on The Tree of Life in Doing Time: Temporality, Hermeneutics, and Contemporary Cinema (2016). Dan56 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to want "current opinion" on The Tree of Life to be included in the lead, yet you offer no source that objectively and explicitly discusses current opinion on the film; there's nothing in the BBC poll you cited that says The Three of Life "is among the most acclaimed films of the 21st century"; that's merely what you personally believe the poll is suggesting, which is putting words in the source's figurative mouth rather than summarizing it in your own words. This isn't good research and why you would repeatedly dilute the properly cited material currently in the article with it raises obvious questions about your neutrality, but alas! There is a Wikipedia guideline which adequately explains what good research is Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Dan56 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is irrelevant to what I had contributed. If a film is named one of the greatest of the century often enough to rank sixth on a worldwide critics' poll by BBC of the best films since 2000, then it is one of the most acclaimed films of the 21st century. I had also included TSPDT, another reliable source, multiple times in the past. The film's placement on the 2012 Sight & Sound polls are another example, as I said before.

Here is the fact of the matter: The Tree of Life has become one of the century's most celebrated films among critics and scholars. That is not an opinion or a lie; it is a fact. When you lead readers to assume that reception for The Tree of Life was polarized upon release and remains so, you are misinforming the public. Why? Because that conclusion is incorrect. AndrewOne (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a fact, find a source that explicitly says it. Nothing in the article says the reception remains polarized. The fact is what the scholarly literature on Malick's films says it is. WP:STICKTOSOURCE clearly says you cant go beyond what the source actually says. We've been through this before. Your sources say The Tree of Life was ranked this number on this list and that number on that list, nothing more, but you're using them say more, and say something that can't be found in actual literature or film scholarship, even though you're arguing it is a perspective shared among critics and scholars. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Don't lose sight of that. And have some more respect for the process. You're a Wikipedian, not a crusader for Malick's or anyone else's films, @AndrewOne: Stop reverting when my argument is rightly based in both policy and reliable sources, sources which you have refused to address. Dan56 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave not only two highly reputable critics' polls as sources but also the scholarly tabulation of Bill Georgaris. I would highly recommend that anyone voting in this conflict read the talk page section that immediately precedes this one (titled "Regarding a deleted paragraph in the lead"). Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "scholarly tabulation"; Georgaris admits in his self-published website that the site is a "hobby" lol. The Tree of Life didn't even make Sight & Sound's top 50 in that list, so it being voted for by a few critics means what? That the critics that liked it then still like it now, while those who still don't didn't vote for it in the poll? Or that it's reception has improved somewhat?? Find something that says something as concretely as you would like it to be said, not half-assed assumptions. Give something that actually says what you're using it to say. Otherwise, actually say what it says. You know, so it's not original research, giving an original conclusion not actually said by any reliable source. And yes, anyone who votes, please look at the preceding section, where I cited this column by The Guardian stating the film "divided both critics and ­audiences ... bagged this year's Palme d'Or - but has been causing audience walkouts". Dan56 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Metacritic's breakdown of film critics' 2011 "best-of" lists. According to this reliable source, it received more critics' votes for the best film of the year than any other motion picture, and no other film garnered more points overall. It simply isn't accurate to imply that reviews for The Tree of Life were ever highly divided, and it is flat-out false to say that they remain so. If a journalist reports this, it is once again a failing in the journalist. AndrewOne (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Best-of" lists aren't reviews. I'm sure even you would agree with me on this point. And again, where does it say they remain so?? Dan56 (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have tried to explain many times, your preferred summary is inaccurate and inadequate. You would have known this long ago had you considered the sources I have long been referring to and reflected on the points made in my previous comments here.

I did, you self-righteous windbag! Dan56 (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraphs are supposed to reflect the esteem in which the subject is currently held. When you look at the lead section of the page for William Shakespeare, will you find a focus on contemporary reception of his plays? No, because this is not what is most relevant to a 21st century overview of his life and works. If reviews for The Tree of Life are not currently polarized, then there is nothing sacrosanct about a lead section only saying of the film that it initially received "polarizing" reviews from critics. It is unquestionably false if reception for the work was never polarized to begin with. Let's briefly discuss some of his other works as well.

The subject is Malick, not The Tree of Life. You're free to direct your biased puffery to that article as you wish, since I have no presence there. Dan56 (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Thin Red Line received a 78/100 on Metacritic, with 29 of 32 reviews positive. Thus, did it polarize critics? No. The New World received a 69/100 on the same site, with 27 out of 38 reviews positive. Thus, were reviews for it highly divided? No.

Lastly, The Tree of Life received an 85/100 (with 40 out of 43 reviews positive) and was "Certified Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes. Thus, did it polarize critics? Of course not. You need to move away from your dependence on the title of some audience poll in The Guardian and instead understand that another person has provided you with a far more thorough and frequently-used source that you have repeatedly ignored for no apparent reason. AndrewOne (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're being obnoxious. I cited two books by film scholars discussing The Tree of Life. You also demonstrate a lack of competence, of NOR and RS; you're performing original research by drawing original conclusions from sources, conclusions which they themselves do not make explicitly: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. You don't comprehend this, so I'm done arguing with you. You really ought to engage others who weigh in here and stop reverting back or removing what your revision had removed before; I will report you and it will come to a point where this page will be blocked and no one will be able to edit it for a period. You're familiar with WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Please, grow up. Dan56 (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Polarizing indeed - The Tree of Life included on Medium.com's The 30 Most Polarizing Movies of the 21st Century, IndieWire's The 30 Most Polarizing Movies Since 2000. Dan56 (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what makes either of those sources superior to Metacritic when it comes to gauging critical reception. AndrewOne (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, Metacritic didn't account for all reviews, including those published by critics at Cannes ([7]); more articles, written by human beings/journalists, not a faulty human made system of computerized scores:


A pattern developing...[edit]

AndrewOne reinserted much of the revision here (19 October 2016), with his own observations and conclusions into the lead on the specifics regarding the reception of certain films, without citations that explicitly verify those conclusions; even the ranking in the BBC poll he specified was incorrect (seventh, not sixth, although such gratuity doesn't belong in the lead). He also added another poorly sourced paragraph here, synthesizing individual review sources into the summary "many of whom highly praised its cinematography while considering its storytelling to be lackluster", while using a Rotten Tomatoes entry page for Day of Heaven to cite the sentence "Days of Heaven has since grown in stature"; the page just shows an aggregate score and review snippets, nothing commenting on the film's growth in stature or anything of the like. This poor sourcing is becoming a pattern, and an annoyance; I don't like removing large amounts of material with usable sources, but they're simply being misused in this case. Dan56 (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's important that Wikipedia editors not draw conclusions, so the word "arguably" is never appropriate; if a journalist or critic argues something, that someone should be named and the specific source for the opinion included.
  • Colourful, exaggerating and promotional adjectives should be left out: "Highly" and "strongly" are examples of words that tend to make the article less neutral.
  • The phrase about Days of Heaven's growth in stature (whatever that means) is sourced to a website which is a personal hobby of Bill Georgaris, and the page referenced does not say anything about growth or stature.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Larry Malick[edit]

This claim "Larry intentionally broke his own hands due to pressure over his musical studies" is apocryphal. All works about Malick cite Biskind's book as the source but Biskind himself gives no source for it's origin. I think this kind of wild claim needs corroboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.214.174 (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception for The Tree of Life[edit]

Is it misleading to say that critics' reception of The Tree of Life in 2011 was the same (that is, polarized) as reception of, say, The New World? I'd argue it is.

  • "The Tree of Life Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved December 5, 2016.
  • "The Tree of Life (2011)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved December 5, 2016.
  • "Best of 2011". CriticsTop10. Retrieved December 1, 2016. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Kerstein, Benjamin (December 19, 2013). "The Beautiful Light: A Contemplation Of Terrence Malick". The Federalist. Retrieved December 5, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) "[...] Malick’s most stylistically unusual and widely acclaimed recent film, [...]"
  • Kohn, Eric (December 19, 2011). "'The Tree of Life' Tops Indiewire's Poll For the Best of 2011 Film; Fassbender Ties With Shannon For Performance". IndieWire. Retrieved December 5, 2016. "The Tree of Life [...] has maintained serious leverage among international critics in recent months, [...]"

I welcome the input of Hadean-mind and other recent editors. AndrewOne (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go. Dan56 (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is misleading. Please address the sources above (as well as BFI's "2011: the year in review"
  • "2011: the year in review". British Film Institute. Retrieved December 16, 2016. "Long before anyone had seen it, the film event of 2011 was preordained to be The Tree of Life [...] many commentators hyped themselves up to a pitch of tremendous anticipation. It seems they were satisfied by the result – in fact the film’s runaway success as our film of the year (it won half as many votes again as the second-placed A Separation) suggests that it might even figure in 2012’s S&S poll of the Best Films of All Time."
They are reliable, and I doubt they would support the implication that The Tree of Life polarized critics as significantly as The New World did. If you have any grievances against them, explain your grievances. AndrewOne (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a source is reliable doesn't allow you to misuse it. None of them address initial response to the film; "anticipation" before a film was seen has nothing to do with a film being seen and received, positively or negatively, and the year-end ranking obviously has nothing to do with an initial response. The RfC above determined that your revision was unacceptable for, among other reasons, being poorly researched. You continue to scour the web for anything that seems like a plausible citation to support what you already have in mind to write, meaning you still haven't learned anything from this. I'm done arguing with you about it. If you'd like to open a new RfC in light of your brand new "sources", no one is stopping you. But you were warned for making edits against consensus, so please know that I've added this article to my watchlist and if this happens again, I'll report you for repeatedly introducing original research and making edits against established consensus. And stop including ref-formatted citations here; they just end up being rendering below this talk page, disrupting the flow of this discussion. Dan56 (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably[edit]

Dan56, I apologize for not noticing that the Google Books citation tool had inserted "author" instead of "editor". I see that you have now linked the reference online which was what I was trying to accomplish. I don't see the need for an in-reference quote when the link leads to the exact same text, but if others think it's needed, it's a minor point, and I see that you left my removal of "arguably" in the text - not only was it essay-like, but close paraphrasing of the source. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine. Dan56 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is it misleading to say that The Tree of Life initially divided critics?[edit]

This request for comments is regarding the claim, in the first paragraph of the page, that The Tree of Life initially divided critics. AndrewOne (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • Yes. My sources can be seen in the above section "Reception for The Tree of Life", and I discuss some of them in my first comment below. AndrewOne (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - AndrewOne misrepresents and shortchanges to some degree the past arguments over this issue. His sources are two aggregates compiling reviews that don't account for the initial reviews after the film's Cannes debut, a year-end top 10 critics list website (seven months after the film opened to its originally divided reaction), and two article quote snippets that say nothing about the reviews (and were written seven months after the film opened). The articles and book sources below clearly show the film did in fact initially polarize critics. Dan56 (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What does 'yes' mean, what does 'no' mean. What is the proposed alternative wording? There were certainly some negative reviews, so what exactly is disputed?Pincrete (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC is regarding the claim that The Tree of Life initially polarized critics. It is a discussion on whether or not there are enough reliable sources reporting the contrary for the claim that it polarized critics to be debatable. I recommend you read the below sections "Sources reinforcing the current lead" and "Sources contradicting the current lead". I should also note that the latter section contains several additional sources that were added after your original comment was posted. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That much I understood, I also understood that there were some very critical reviews and responses. I'm not sure whether the disagreement is about 'initially', 'divided', or what and would suggest looking for another forms of words. Some reviews were very negative certainly. Pincrete (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I agree with Dan56. The sources provided below show that the film polarized critics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence. There seems a problem with the precision of the wording that warrants something other than a black and white yes/no. Of course, with almost any work of art, even the best, you can probably find one respected reviewer who thinks it is trash and someone can use that to try to argue, "reviews are mixed." At first sight this looks like a complex percentage comparison issue, worthy of finding a good statistician (just kidding on statistician.). Also, regarding language, we get a very different feeling from "Polarized critics", "divided critics" and "mixed reviews", different intensities of disagreement--if there was indeed "significant" disagreement, whatever metric we are going to use for "significant".
There also seems to be a question of the timing of the critical reviews. What timeframe is "initially"? I looked at the quotes and was a little overwhelmed. The current language does not say "initially" but instead "Reviews after its Cannes premiere, however, were mixed; many critics felt it had commendable qualities but found it cumbersome and overindulgent as a film.[1]" I don't have access to the reference and wonder if that is an accurate summary. Does someone have a full quote of the page that comes from? (My apologies if I missed it.) If we are going to rely on individual critic's voices, it would help me if there was a list of each specific review, date and source and the believed quality of the reviewer, with the question of the timeline of "initially" in mind. Perhaps, some who disagree on Yes vs. No can agree on which sources are quality reviews and which ones can be ignored, and might even be able to agree on what "initially" means.
Personal aside: I love good film and have been working through one Malick's films and its fantastic cinematography and sparse dialogue, so I am very interested in this discussion. But, I'm mostly overwhelmed by the number of reviews, their timing, and whether I should judge them as reliable. (I personally don't trust Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB as quality reviews because I think anyone can comment. But I think something like Roger Ebert's site is respectable as are many of the expert film reviewers who publish in the major papers like New York Times. I very much appreciated this link.) --David Tornheim (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Carruthers, Lee (2016). "Deep Time". Doing Time: Temporality, Hermeneutics, and Contemporary Cinema. SUNY Press. p. 117. ISBN 1438460872.
@David Tornheim:, the relevant portion is quoted in #Sources reinforcing the current lead. Dan56 (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan56: Thanks. I had already seen that before I posted. I also saw "Reception for The Tree of Life" from AndrewOne. AndrewOne's reviews make a good case for his position. And yours make a good case for your position. Hence my post. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked at #Sources contradicting the current lead. It appears to me that critics of 2011 are divided on whether critics were divided. What to do? I am very curious what more substantive secondary sources have to say, such as articles published in film journals. If there is a way you two could differentiate based on the quality of the source, e.g. make a section for quotes from the very highest quality sources (identifying them as such) that are published in peer reviewed journals, film textbooks, rather than mainstream newspapers and magazines? That would help me decide. I would trust those sources more for the question above than a critic writing shortly after the film was released who would not have had time to talk to all the other critics. If even the secondary sources are divided we might do this: Expert X says, "Initially, critics were sharply divided." Expert Y says, "critics were in near unanimous agreement about the excellence of work as soon as it was released." The Guardian source has an interesting mixture of the "nearly everyone liked it, but Sean Penn was not so enthusiastic." We might try an approach like that as well, giving the sense that by far most did, but there were a number of critics who took issue. As I said in my first post here, I think the language in the RfC question might be overreaching. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure - I was called to the RfC by the bot. In the section about the film, the wording seems to indicate that the reviews were mixed, that is, individual critics made both positive and negative comments. (The source referenced for this is not linked on line, so I couldn't evaluate it, which is why I didn't !vote.) This is different, however, from a situation where some reviews were very positive and others were very negative. If there were, in fact, very positive, very negative, and also mixed reviews, then the paragraph should be changed to reflect that. Some of the sources linked in this discussion could be added to support the change. The word "polarized" may not be suitable if there were also many reviews that were in the middle; perhaps "wide range of critical response" or "reviews ranging from high praise to total disparagement" would give the idea. The word "initially" is redundant when the article already says "after its premiere". After reading this section, though, I would like to point out that while this article is supposed to be a biography of Mr. Malick, there is nothing in the section about his role in the film's creation. Elsewhere in the article there are bits and pieces about this, but a sentence here delineating this would be appropriate.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes I see that wording "Reviews after its Cannes premiere, however, were mixed" in Terrence Malick and "the film received mixed early reviews" in The Tree of Life (film) currently. I would like to thank the editors for this discussion as it is a beautiful read on the use of a relative wording in Wikipedia. I think that a relative term such as "mixed" likely should not be used but instead, short specific references to respected reviews and critics on both sides: basically a tldr of the rest of The_Tree_of_Life_(film)#Reception possibly using pull quotes. Hopefully, this is middle ground. Endercase (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The film achieved an 85/100 on Metacritic and an 84% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Nick Page of the British Film Institute writes that the "many commentators [who] hyped themselves up to a pitch of tremendous anticipation" were seemingly "satisfied with the result". A writer for The Huffington Post likewise describes it as "critically acclaimed", and Ben Child of The Guardian writes that it "garnered ecstatic reviews from most critics". AndrewOne (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Andrew, "many commentators" were satisfied; and many others were unsatisfied at first! As reported by the sources below :))))) The Huffington Post was written several months after the original reviews--in November--so what possible relevance can they have on how the film was received initially?? Dan56 (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I look at the Guardian source, listed above for 8/22/2011, and it says:
Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life, the director's first film for six years, garnered ecstatic reviews from most critics and carried off the Palme D'Or at Cannes earlier this year. Yet not everyone thought it was a masterpiece: star Sean Penn has revealed in a French interview that the experience of working on the film left him confused and disappointed. [emphasis added.]
That seems to support Dan56's view. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given by the opposing side include page 391 of The Philosophy of War Films (which is currently cited in the lead section), a list on Medium.com, a re-publication of that list on IndieWire, the title of an audience poll in The Guardian, and several other articles. A good number of these sources are unsatisfactory, however. In the page from The Philosophy of War Films, it is said that the voice-over divided critics, not the work as a whole. The list on Medium.com is addressing audience reception, not critical reception. The list on IndieWire is simply, as said before, a re-publication of the Medium.com list. The writer of the page in The Guardian gives no sources for the statement in the title; it is simply an audience poll page. There is no question that the acclaim for The Tree of Life was not unanimous, but the implication that overall reception of the work was mixed is simply too dubious to be stated as outright fact. AndrewOne (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THERE'S NO IMPLICATION THAT OVERALL RECEPTION WAS MIXED. I'm getting growingly irritated by you saying this again and again, here and in discussions past, especially when the lead duly notes (with a source verifying this) that The Tree of Life and Malick's other initially polarizing films improved in their critical standing: "Their critical standing improved over time; The Tree of Life has since been named as Malick's most acclaimed film..." And the sources are generally fine, especially the ones you glossed over as "other articles". You also conveniently left out another book/scholar source: Lee Carruthers' Doing Time: Temporality, Hermeneutics, and Contemporary Cinema. Carruthers could not have said the film received "divided responses" in a more direct and explicit fashion than he did here, before going on to summarizing one negative reviews, followed by a positive review, followed by a negative, and so on. It's actually a very informative read. You really should check it out! :) Dan56 (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because The Tree of Life is said on the page to have "polarized audiences and critics, there is indeed an implication that reception was mixed overall (by the way, please do not type in all capitals). It is of course true that some reliable sources have reported a divided critical response, but one must also consider that other reliable sources have reported acclaim. The statement that The Tree of Life "polarized audiences and critics" is once again too debatable and dubious to be stated as outright fact.
To address another statement in the lead section, the page from The Philosophy of War Films, as I have said before, does not verify the statement that the book is cited for. Currently, the book is being used to support the claim that The Thin Red Line, The New World and The Tree of Life "initially polarized audiences and critics; some felt [that their philosophical and spiritual overtones, as well as the use of meditative voice-overs from individual characters,] made the films engaging and unique while others found them pretentious and gratuitous." However, Robert Pippin (the author of the essay in question) is referring simply to the voice-overs, saying that the director's use of them and the scope of them divided critics and audiences. Furthermore, Pippin did not state that some found the voice-overs "gratuitous".
Please be more civil in future responses. AndrewOne (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...INITIALLY polarized audiences and critics" Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources reinforcing the current lead[edit]

A. O. Scott in The New York Times on polarizing films in summer 2011 ("Debated Movies: 'The Three of Life..."; August 28, 2011)


Amy Kaufman in the Los Angeles Times ("Independent Films: The Tree of Life...", May 2011):


Eric Ditzian in MTV News ("The Tree of Life: The Cannes Reviews Are In!", May 2011):


Lee Carruthers in Doing Time: Temporality, Hermeneutics, and Contemporary Cinema (2016), p. 117:


Sorry, but these sources, especially Carruthers' detailed analysis and discussion of the topic of this argument--this film's original reception--are superior and more relevant, in the spirit of sticking to the best sources on the topic. Dan56 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A response of mine can be seen in the above "Discussion" portion of this RfC. AndrewOne (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources contradicting the current lead[edit]

In The Guardian, Ben Child states:

Film Criticism and Digital Cultures: Journalism, Social Media and the Democratization of Opinion, (Critic Xan Brooks, quoted by author Andrew McWhirter):

Rudie Obias of Mental Floss mentions slight divisiveness but reports overall:

Its Metacritic page:

In Theology and the Films of Terrence Malick (Christopher Barnett and Clark J. Elliston, eds.; Routledge):

In a June 2011 National Review article, Ross Douthat reports:

"2011: the year in review" (Nick Page of the British Film Institute):

AndrewOne (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overlong lead?[edit]

Dan56,

I think the current lead is far too long-winded and holds irrelevant information; look at most other film directors bio's: they don't mention all that is mentioned in Malick's. People will find out about the polarizing nature of his work in the main article, so they don't need to be told about it in such a rambling fashion in the lead. I personally think it should mention his two early films, hiatus, and the tone of the films after his return to cinema, plus a small mention of their polarizing nature. To mention their critical standing almost twice over, and that critics are divided on these films, and then to include To the Wonder as even more divided, seems like serious overkill. "These films were marked by philosophical and spiritual overtones, as well as the use of meditative voice-overs from individual characters, and initially polarized audiences and critics; some felt these elements made the films engaging and unique while others found them pretentious and gratuitous. Their critical standing improved over time; The Tree of Life has since been named as Malick's most acclaimed film, while his next film, 2012's To the Wonder, proved one of his most divisive." — everything in bold is, to me, unnecessary. Hadean-mind (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would understand removing some of it, relocating it elsewhere in the article, but not removing it to the extent you did. I don't see the relevance of other articles. And considering you're argument, I don't see how you can remove that portion, but leave the Roger Ebert quote. Dan56 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56,

I still think it retains unnecessary information. The quote: "Their critical standing improved over time; The Tree of Life has since been named as Malick's most acclaimed film, while his next film, 2012's To the Wonder, proved one of his most divisive" is most definitely clunky, considering he's now way past The Tree of Life and To the Wonder in his filmography now; it seems to be a strange thing to point out, after already mentioning that his three major "return to cinema" films were polarizing, which doesn't mean bad, and so doesn't need to be defended by mentioning that their critical standing has improved over time; seems to me like unnecessary fanboyism. Also, I believe the Ebert quote to be a great reference to center readers' minds of the nature of Malick's work in a simple and effective manner. If I could suggest an opening lead, it would be something like this:

Terrence Frederick Malick (/ˈmælɪk/; born November 30, 1943) is an American film director, screenwriter and producer.

Malick began his career as part of the New Hollywood film-making wave with the films Badlands (1973) and Days of Heaven (1978), before a lengthy hiatus. Malick returned to directing with movies such as The Thin Red Line (1998), The New World (2005), and The Tree of Life (2011), the latter of which was awarded the Palm d'or at the 64th Cannes Film Festival.

Malick's films are typically marked by philosophical and spiritual overtones, as well as the use of meditative voice-overs from individual characters, and have polarized audiences and critics. Film critic Roger Ebert wrote that Malick was among the few remaining directors who yearn "to make no less than a masterpiece"; he noted Malick's films to have a unifying common theme: "Human lives diminish beneath the overarching majesty of the world." Hadean-mind (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think my current edit of the lead is pretty neat and strong, Dan56. What do you think? I'm interested in what AndrewOne thinks about this too. Hadean-mind (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hadean-mind, I consider some of your recent edits to be better than others. By mentioning some major awards won by him, for example, you added relevant information. I disagree, however, with your view that the lead, with regards to critical reception, should simply say that Malick's works "have polarized audiences and critics". It is an incomplete account, and in the case of his directorial debut, simply inaccurate. Badlands was never a significantly divisive work. Ryan Gilbey states in The Guardian that upon its 1973 premiere in New York, "the reception it received overshadowed even Scorsese's Mean Streets, which played at the same festival." David Thomson, one of the most respected living film critics, reports that by "common consent, his first film, Badlands (1973), was one of the most remarkable first feature films made in America." It was well-received then and is highly regarded now. His four films following it are highly regarded as well. A lead section cannot simply leave out mentioning of modern opinion. Where would readers be if the lead section for Stanley Kubrick's page was only concerned with initial reviews of his films? What if the lead section for the page on Socrates only covered contemporaries' opinions of him? Surely we can agree that it would not be a very comprehensive account of the subject's life and notability. Regarding the quote from Roger Ebert, I agree with Dan56 that it does not need to be in the lead – though I don't think that its inclusion there amounts necessarily to "fanboy"-ism as Dan56 initially stated (which would depend on what else is also in the lead section), but simply to undue weight as he later said. (On a side note, Hadean-mind, when wanting to tag other editors in the future, don't put any spaces between the "User:" and the first writing of the username.) AndrewOne (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AndrewOne & Dan56, I do now agree on the Ebert quote. However, I'm now starting to think that, with the current lead, the mention of the polarizing nature of the voice-overs is very unnecessary. The lead, otherwise, is very straight-forward and factual, as it should be, but then out of nowhere, at the end of a sentence, it mentions that the VO's are polarizing to critics and audiences. This seems very unnecessary and bias to me.Hadean-mind (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is no more biased and unnecessary than mentioning that The Thin Red Line and The Tree of Life were "awarded the Golden Bear at the 49th Berlin International Film Festival and the Palme d'Or at the 64th Cannes Film Festival, respectively." Dan56 (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it is very different; mentioning the fact that an prestigious award was given for these films, over one critics interpretation of his reception, are two very different things, Dan. I will leave it though, since it seems so important to you. Hadean-mind (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search of the phrases "polarizing" and "Malick" will quickly demonstrate it's quite a prominent viewpoint ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]). Dan56 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56,

Yes, but the problem is that the "divided audiences and critics" comment in the lead is directly related to the fact that Malick's work is "philosophical and spiritual" and uses "meditative voice-overs", despite the fact that his uncompromising work contains — and divides audiences and critics on — so much more than that, including the aspects mentioned in the sentence following, which gets no mention of it's reaction by audiences and critics. It comes across as clunky and forced, and should either be removed or rephrased. Hadean-mind (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Tree of Life[edit]

@AndrewOne: Can you explain what you were doing with this edit? There is no edit summary.

--David Tornheim (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: Yes. I moved mentioning of the awards up, since they are closer in date to the film's original release than to the present. I also deleted "drastically, eventually becoming Malick's most acclaimed work" because the first word is unnecessary and the source didn't state as fact that The Tree of Life is the director's most acclaimed film. You could make a case that his first two films have received greater praise. AndrewOne (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it says "arguably his most acclaimed work". I would not object to including that as a quote by the author of the text, unless other quality WP:RS does not agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewOne: Weird. I did not get your ping. It looks like you did it right by making sure to update your signature with ~~~~ when you added the ping template. I think the ping template must be buggy. I have seen this before. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error[edit]

There's a cite error - a reference to an undefined referenced "Michaels". Dan56, it looks like you added it, so maybe you know what the correct attribution should be.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Terrence Malick. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Malick paternal ancestry[edit]

When there is a lack of sources with statements coming straight from the person in the article that clarifies issues such as their ancestry, as in this case with Terrence Malick since he is a very private person and has rarely given interviews, we can only rely and state what the second best sources we have say, which in this case are biographies by reputable writers.

So far 4 biographies have been about Terrence Malick:

https://books.google.se/books?id=_m7cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA193&dq=terrence+malik+assyrian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRwueQ7o_wAhVKEncKHUYPDck4ChDoATAAegQI

https://books.google.se/books?id=jSNCB6yCJPoC&pg=PA14&dq=terrence+malik+lebanese&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_g4ek7o_wAhUtl4sKHZNtBH4Q6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=terrence%20malik%20lebanese&f=false

https://books.google.se/books?id=nEa_33WQkDkC&pg=PT13&dq=terrence+malik+lebanese&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_g4ek7o_wAhUtl4sKHZNtBH4Q6AEwAXoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=terrence%20malik%20lebanese&f=false

https://books.google.se/books?id=JMVeCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT68&dq=terrence+malik+lebanese&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_g4ek7o_wAhUtl4sKHZNtBH4Q6AEwAnoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=terrence%20malik%20lebanese&f=false

How exactly his Lebanese and Assyrian ancestry as stated in his biographies fits into his family history is not something that we as editors can put together if Malick himself has not stated anything in public about the matter and adding things such as "His father was a Lebanese Assyrian or his father was an Assyrian from Lebanon who emigrated from Lebanon or his father was only Assyrian or only Lebanese etc" would be violating WP:OR since here in Wikipedia we dont interpret or twist or add any OR to the most reliable sources.

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary "Any interpretation of primary source material (which includes synthesis) requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" Since there is no reliable secondary source such as an independent academic review from a reputable genealogist such as Henry Louis Gates, the biographies become the main sources and we state exactly what they say until a reputable secondary source debates or questions it.

The Malick family of Terrence Malick and the Malek-Yonan family, the last one being indeed a very ancient family from Urmia, are totally different families as indicated by the official documentation found in the National Archives. The oficial documentation so far does not make a genealogical link between the two families and the surnames are also consistently spelled differently, with the Malick spelling never appearing as Malek nor Malek-Yonan and the Malek-Yonan family always spelled as such in the documents.

The Malick family of Terrence Malick was Presbyterian and seems to be of both Lebanese AND Assyrian descent as per what the primary souces state. Emil, Terrence Malick's father, was baptized in Elmora Presbyterian Church in Elizabeth, New Jersey in 1917 (father appears as Avimalg M) https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?dbid=61048&h=150522150&indiv=try&o_vc=Record:OtherRecord&rhSource=6061 (requires free trial or membership to see)

Emil Malick's grandfather was Jacob (Jacob Moses) Malick as can be seen in his father's social security application here https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/11238934:60901?tid=&pid=&queryId=649af51d80a04ccf73363d2ad5968970&_phsrc=bVu673&_phstart=successSource (requires free trial or membership to see)

In 1906, a Rev Jacob Malick (b. 1846), a preacher of Turkish ancestry (not of Persian or Assyrian ancestry as its always stated with Assyrians from Persia), resident of Urmia, appears traveling from Hamburg to New York in 1906 https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=1068&h=2220298&tid=&pid=&queryId=043ba0af2c61d15bcb1245915c18f2f7&usePUB=true&_phsrc=bVu696&_phstart=successSource (requires free trial or membership to see)

Reverend Jacob Moses Malick could have very well been a Lebanese Protestant missionary who converted to Presbyterian when the American and European Protestant mission went to Beirut and Tripoli in the 1840s and then followed the missionaries led by Dr. Perkins and traveled to Urmia during the 1860-1885 period when Presbyterian missionaries where going to Urmia and Armenia https://books.google.se/books?id=7cObDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=lebanese+in+urmia&source=bl&ots=PpGKKNdr18&sig=ACfU3U0PwsmeqJt-RQl_34jgTaSgJBVwLw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiowZS-sprwAhXolIsKHYHrBJ4Q6AEwEXoECAQQAw#v=onepage&q=lebanese%20in%20urmia&f=false

More on protestant missions to Urmia in the 1860s-1870s https://books.google.se/books?id=7Lqb8HOdNB4C&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=german+protestant+urmia&source=bl&ots=M0ukzM2i2T&sig=ACfU3U0-69SFqTDen_32O82DosyuZSxVPg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiTpbG0uprwAhVoAxAIHXHZAVMQ6AEwEXoECAoQAw#v=onepage&q=german%20protestant%20urmia&f=false

The Malick family from Btourram/Bterram/Bturan in Lebanon was one of those Christian families that became deeply loyal Presbyterians, with Charles Malick, it most famous member, even joining the Presbyterian missionaries in Egypt before he left to America to study at Harvard https://books.google.se/books?id=SW2YDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA189&dq=Charles+Malik+protestant&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimzdKn0PnwAhXJvosKHVjUAjIQ6AEwBnoECAoQAg#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Malik%20protestant&f=false

The Malick family was not the only family devoted to Presbyterianism, many important figures of the modern history of Lebanon were Presbyterian converts and a good number of them joined their missions outside of Lebanon in their proselytizing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Protestant_Christians

It is worth pointing out that Terrence Malick's possible relative diplomat Charles Malik (who was a Presbyterian and joined their mission in Cairo), studied philosophy at Oxford (as an exchange or Rhodes from Harvard) and in Germany under German philosopher Martin Heidegger.

Terrence Malick like Charles Malik also studied philosophy in Harvard and went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar where he did a thesis and translated Martin Heidegger, Charles Malick's teacher, and perhaps even met Heidegger as well between 1965-1969. This could very well be just coincidence but definitely an interesting one.

That Terrence Malick's greatgrandfather was a Lebanese protestant missionary that traveled to Urmia in 1860-1870s is again a possibility that could support what his biographers are saying about his father's ancestry which for now is what we have as the most reliable sources.Chris O' Hare (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again grasping at straws but this time this is an even bigger reach than F Murray Abraham. There was one book that said he was Lebanese and a couple others ran with it. What's really funny is that one of the books you cited says his father is Lebanese ONLY and doesn't even mention his father being Assyrian from Urmia. Then it states that Malick is Lebanese when no such language exists. Lebanese people speak Arabic. That alone should tell you that it's a horrible source but of course you have an agenda which is why you are writing these long paragraphs that don't prove anything. Then it says that it means king in Arabic when it si originally an Akkadian word and was used by Assyrians long before the Arabs and also has many different ways of being spelled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malik
The Malick family of Terrence Malick and the Malek-Yonan family, the last one being indeed a very ancient family from Urmia, are totally different families as indicated by the official documentation found in the National Archives. The oficial documentation so far does not make a genealogical link between the two families and the surnames are also consistently spelled differently, with the Malick spelling never appearing as Malek nor Malek-Yonan and the Malek-Yonan family always spelled as such in the documents. Means absolutely nothing and as I already have proven, it can be spelled many different ways in English. For example a prominant Assyrian leader Malik Khoshaba has a different spelling but its also sometimes spelled as Malek Khoshaba. Its the same thing and you are grasping at straws here.
The Malick family of Terrence Malick was Presbyterian and seems to be of both Lebanese AND Assyrian descent as per what the primary souces state. Emil, Terrence Malick's father, was baptized in Elmora Presbyterian Church in Elizabeth, New Jersey in 1917 (father appears as Avimalg M) https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?dbid=61048&h=150522150&indiv=try&o_vc=Record:OtherRecord&rhSource=6061 (requires free trial or membership to see) This argument is just as bad as your previous one. Assyrians from Urmia adhere to different sects of Christianity. For example Anna Eshoo an Assyrian in the US congress from Urmia is a Catholic and most Assyrians from Urmia are actually Catholics. Nothing you said here makes him Lebanese. Urmia has no Lebanese people in it and had a massive Assyrian population in the 1800s and early 1900s and still has many living there today. The name Urmia means place or city of water in Assyrian.
Reverend Jacob Moses Malick could have very well been a Lebanese Protestant missionary who converted to Presbyterian when the American and European Protestant mission went to Beirut and Tripoli in the 1840s and then followed the missionaries led by Dr. Perkins and traveled to Urmia during the 1860-1885 period when Presbyterian missionaries where going to Urmia and Armenia https://books.google.se/books?id=7cObDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=lebanese+in+urmia&source=bl&ots=PpGKKNdr18&sig=ACfU3U0PwsmeqJt-RQl_34jgTaSgJBVwLw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiowZS-sprwAhXolIsKHYHrBJ4Q6AEwEXoECAQQAw#v=onepage&q=lebanese%20in%20urmia&f=false This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is one of the biggest reaches I've ever seen.
The Malick family from Btourram/Bterram/Bturan in Lebanon was one of those Christian families that became deeply loyal Presbyterians, with Charles Malick, it most famous member, even joining the Presbyterian missionaries in Egypt before he left to America to study at Harvard https://books.google.se/books?id=SW2YDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA189&dq=Charles+Malik+protestant&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimzdKn0PnwAhXJvosKHVjUAjIQ6AEwBnoECAoQAg#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Malik%20protestant&f=false What does this have to do with anything?
The Malick family was not the only family devoted to Presbyterianism, many important figures of the modern history of Lebanon were Presbyterian converts and a good number of them joined their missions outside of Lebanon in their proselytizing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Protestant_Christians
It is worth pointing out that Terrence Malick's possible relative diplomat Charles Malik (who was a Presbyterian and joined their mission in Cairo), studied philosophy at Oxford (as an exchange or Rhodes from Harvard) and in Germany under German philosopher Martin Heidegger.
Terrence Malick like Charles Malik also studied philosophy in Harvard and went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar where he did a thesis and translated Martin Heidegger, Charles Malick's teacher, and perhaps even met Heidegger as well between 1965-1969. This could very well be just coincidence but definitely an interesting one. Is this Wikipedia or a conspiracy theory website? He's an Assyrian from Urmia which had a significant Assyrian population. There is one book that put him down as Lebanese and said his last name has a meaning in a Lebanese language.
That Terrence Malick's greatgrandfather was a Lebanese protestant missionary that traveled to Urmia in 1860-1870s is again a possibility that could support what his biographers are saying about his father's ancestry which for now is what we have as the most reliable sources No it really isn't. It's probably one of the biggest reaches ever on Wikipedia. The people who wrote those books aren't some specialists as shown by them calling "Lebanese" a language and stating his last name is Arabic when it is not. They could have just been paid off to add Lebanese in there as many Arabs and other ethnic groups try to erase the Assyrian name and identity and Arabize everyone, just like you are right now. I'm going to revert your edit and please don't change it. You are being very disruptive with your long posts that prove nothing. Henanton (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Once again grasping at straws but this time this is an even bigger reach than F Murray Abraham". I dont grasp at straws I present as many reliable sources as I can and follow Wikipedia's policies. And I did specify that the possibility of his Malick ancestor being a foreign protestant missionary from Lebanon was just a theory to consider taking the four biographies and the primary sources as point of reference/evidence.

"There was one book that said he was Lebanese and a couple others ran with it". Its not just a book, its a biography and that the other 3 biographies cited "ran with it" is your own WP:OR. Unfortunately the four biographies is the best thing with have right now.

"Then it states that Malick is Lebanese when no such language exists. Lebanese people speak Arabic". Lebanese people speak Lebanese Arabic, yes there is actually that terminology for it.

"Then it says that it means king in Arabic when it si originally an Akkadian word and was used by Assyrians long before the Arabs and also has many different ways of being spelled". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malik Who cares whether its originally an Akkadian word or from the planet of the Annunakis, the surname Malik/Malick is all over Asia (India, Pakistan and the whole Middle East)

"For example a prominant Assyrian leader Malik Khoshaba has a different spelling but its also sometimes spelled as Malek Khoshaba" Yes, but the famous ancient Malek family from Urmia to whom the Malick family of Terrence Malick has been tried to be connected in the past always goes by MALEK-YONAN, and never do the ancestors of Terrence Malick appear as Malek-Yonan in the official documents in the National Archives, not even ONCE.

"This argument is just as bad as your previous one". I stick to sources and Wikipedia guidelines, which you are constantly trying to ignore and twist as part of your disruption and incompetence.Chris O' Hare (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chris O' Hare
I dont grasp at straws I present as many reliable sources as I can and follow Wikipedia's policies. And I did specify that the possibility of his Malick ancestor being a foreign protestant missionary from Lebanon was just a theory to consider taking the four biographies and the primary sources as point of reference/evidence. Are you kidding me? All your responses in these talk pages are long paragraphs that are full of conspiracy theories and talking about things that have no connection.
Its not just a book, its a biography and that the other 3 biographies cited "ran with it" is your own WP:OR. Unfortunately the four biographies is the best thing with have right now. They literally copied it word for word. They do not even state where that Lebanese comes from. It's clear the one who originally wrote that he has Lebanese ancestry had an agenda considering they even stated his last name means king in the Lebanese language. Lebanese people speak Arabic and identify as Arabs. There is no such thing as a Lebanese language.
Lebanese people speak Lebanese Arabic, yes there is actually that terminology for it. No, they speak Arabic with a different dialect compared to someone from Iraq. There is no language called Lebanese. It's funny you are making it seem like because it's a biography it must be some holy grail source, yet they referred to Lebanese as a language which clearly shows it is an unreliable source.
Who cares whether its originally an Akkadian word or from the planet of the Annunakis, the surname Malik/Malick is all over Asia (India, Pakistan and the whole Middle East) I do and so should you considering you are claiming the book is reliable when they don't even know that it is an Assyrian last name and used by Assyrians originally. Let's see. The book says he is Lebanese, and even says his last name means king in Lebanese. Looks like an agenda to erase the Assyrian name to me.
Yes, but the famous ancient Malek family from Urmia to whom the Malick family of Terrence Malick has been tried to be connected in the past always goes by MALEK-YONAN, and never do the ancestors of Terrence Malick appear as Malek-Yonan in the official documents in the National Archives, not even ONCE. This means nothing. Also there was a post in this talk section http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060828/24042.htm that has since been deleted and was aknowledged by another Wikipedia user. It stated that Rosie Malek Yonans cousin Terrence Malick helped her in getting to testify in DC. There is also this: http://www.aina.org/news/20110227140026.htm
But I was never arguing Terrence being Assyrian. This is about him being Lebanese which is a lie made up by an author.
I stick to sources and Wikipedia guidelines, which you are constantly trying to ignore and twist as part of your disruption and incompetence No you twist sources to fit your agenda. Your only source is a book that refers to Lebanese as a language and doesn't even know the origin of his last name. If it's a reliable source, the author would have known not to refer to Lebanese as a language. What's funny is that source doesn't even mention his Assyrian heritage. It says his father is 100% Lebanese. There were no Lebanese people living in Urmia back then or even now. The Christians were all Assyrian or Armenian. Henanton (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity Dispute[edit]

I just spoke to one of my relatives who is in his 90s. He grew up in Urmia, worked as a civil engineer and left in the years following the Iranian Revolution. I asked him about the different ethnic and religious groups when he was growing up there and he described it as being very pluralistic. He said there were Muslims, Christians and some minorities like Jews, Baháʼí and Zoroastrians.

I asked specifically asked if he ever knew of the presence of any Lebanese Muslims, or Lebanese Christians in Urmia when he was young. He said that there were definitely none.

I would be curious to know what church Terry's father went to. Assyrian and Armenian Christians in that part of the world tend to have a strong ethnoreligious/ethnolinguistic identity underscored by denoting their ethnicity in their church denomination (ex. Assyrian Church of the East, Armenian Apostolic Church) and the services being at least partly in the respective language (ex. Aramaic, Armenian.) There doesn't seem to be such ethnoreligous churches like the Lebanese Maronite Church in Urmia with the respective language like Lebanese Arabic. Lebanese people are amazing with a fascinating and unique culture, but it seems unlikely he is actually Lebanese.

I agree that much is being made of his ethnicity, but considering how underrepresented and often typecasted middle eastern people are in Hollywood, I can understand the intention behind certain ethnic groups for wanting to say someone like Terry is of their ethnicity.

(I'm on a work VPN network so this IP is shared by several users) 8.18.220.189 (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terrence_Malick&oldid=1194424534"