Talk:Rear Window

Reverted edit

@Beyond My Ken: You said my edit was a POV edit. I'm confused by this, because the guidelines say that it doesn't matter if I have personal beliefs/biases about a topic as long as the edit itself is neutral.

The terms that I edited out of this page are detrimental to the article's clarity and style:

1. By definition, a wheelchair is a mobility aid. Its sole purpose is to increase mobility. The confinement is due to Jeff's injury, not his wheelchair.

2. These terms carry unnecessary emotion. "Confined" and "bound" are words that both have connotations with imprisonment, and these terms cast the person in the wheelchair (Jeff, in this case) as a prisoner. These terms slip in an emotional perspective (that a man in a wheelchair is a prisoner), and they present it as a given. The term "uses a wheelchair" doesn't assume any emotional perspective, it just states a fact.

3. A great many style guides discourage these terms or language that is similar. Waitalie Nat (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You're not confused, you knew precisely what you were doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you're not assuming good intent here. This talk page is not to evaluate me, this talk page is to evaluate the edit.

But for the record, no one is paying me to edit Wikipedia. I don't work for any disability advocacy organizations in any capacity. I care about disability rights. I'm in no way violating the POV rule. Waitalie Nat (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You're confusing conflict of interest with editing with a POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I see no rule against systematically taking out outdated or offensive terminology (because again, this is not my own opinion, this is pretty widely supported by every style guide I can find that says anything about disability terminology). Especially since the change supports neutrality (as I talked about earlier: "uses a wheelchair" is far less loaded than "wheelchair-bound"). Wiki editors are human beings. You're focusing on the fact that I personally dislike the term, and not the fact that there are several good reasons that the terms "confined to a wheelchair" and "wheelchair-bound" don't belong in an encyclopedia. Waitalie Nat (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Political correctness has no place in a fact-based encyclopedia. Your edit, as you admit in the above comment, was removing material that you found "offensive", that is, by definition, POV editing. Please read WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

1. I used the word offensive because of this page, which states that offensive material that doesn't serve a purpose doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

2. As I've said before, a multitude of sources classify these terms as offensive.

3. None of your responses have addressed the actual edit. "Confined to a wheelchair" and "wheelchair-bound" are very emotionally loaded terms, where "uses a wheelchair" is not, and it's inaccurate to say people are bound by/to or confined by wheelchairs when wheelchairs are mobility aids. Waitalie Nat (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your attempt to be politically correct distorts the plot. The character is frustrated because he is confined to a wheelchair to recuperate and turns to "people watching" out his rear window to relieve the tedium. The wheelchair is not a source of empowerment for him, as it would be for someone who cannot get around without one, it's a prison.

This is my last response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I've already explained the reasons for my edit. "Political correctness" was not a reason for my edit.

"As it would be for someone who cannot get around without one." He can't get around without one. The movie would be much shorter if he could. Therefore, it's factually inaccurate to say it confines or binds him.

It's one thing to describe Jeff's frustration (which could be done in a separate sentence). It's another to blur the distinctions between a character's emotion and the basic facts of the plot.

I agree that this discussion is going nowhere. I think a third opinion is a good idea. (I have listed this page there). Waitalie Nat (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Beyond My Ken. The wording is accurate and precise. To change it to make it much less accurate and much less precise destroys the reader's understanding, because the plotline hinges on the fact that Jeff is confined to a wheelchair in his apartment and is non-ambulatory. Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Two questions

1) In the Production section, regarding composer Franz Waxman, it says "his contributions were limited to the opening and closing titles and the piano tune "Lisa" was written by one of the neighbors." What neighbors? Neighbors to whom?

2) In the Analysis section, why is male gaze in scare quotes? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have clarified the first, which was confusing. As for the second, I assume that these are not "scare quotes", but are an actual quote from the source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

But are regular quotes needed for a general concept? I think it reads fine without them. They look and read as scare quotes - they make it sound like the author is belittling the concept. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It's really not a general concept. I think the quotes are appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• RearMuralPublicArt.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)