Talk:Brian Desmond Hurst

Moving on

On reviewing the very brief information that existed on Wikipedia as at early December 2009 I took the opportunity in December 2009 and early January 2010 to move this article from a brief stub to a referenced and more detailed account of Brian Desmond Hurst's main achievements drawing on a significant research base that I am fortunate to possess. This is hopefully the start of a process that can be expanded in years to come. (Quartertoten (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Maugham books and reference

I possess both of the Maugham books that have been referenced in the 'writings' section at the foot of this article by another editor. From my review of both books they provide a very brief mention of BDH- irrelevant almost. I am wondering about this reference and whether it should be removed or put in context and then cited along with the other (much richer in information) texts now referenced. (Quartertoten (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)) 18th August 2010. Following on from the above. The sentence previously added on the two Maugham books has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartertoten (talk • contribs) 13:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

16,000 words and onward!

16,000 words and onward

Having started to up-date this entry in December 2009 when it stood at just over 2000 words we are now at over 16,000 words (January 2011)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartertoten (talk • contribs) 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

2016 and knowledge of Hurst and his film legacy increase year on year

With 'the Life of Brian' on wiki now extending to 22,000 words interest in his life, career and films is increasing. Awards and substantial recognition in Belfast, where he was born and bred, are deserved. Most of his film catelogue is now available on dvd and other medium to allow us to p[enetrate back into and explore the art on film he left us with. Some are magnificent, others historically important and some were pay cheques. There is no genre but the issue of conflict, warfare or emotional, do run as a spine through many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartertoten (talk • contribs) 12:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Brian Desmond Hurst/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is still completely unreferenced, and, before I fixed it today, was filled with ideological POV and accusations of prostitution against a prominent living actor. Whoever is responsible for screening out this kind of vandalism failed badly. Who knows how many mirror sites picked up this garbage. Absolutely outrageous and unbelievable!! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Desmond Hurst. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103075737/http://www.ulsterhistory.co.uk/130411.html to http://www.ulsterhistory.co.uk/130411.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Conflict on Film

Hurst is arguably one of the greatest UK film directors on the genre of conflict on film. Lean and Powell would also be included in the list. A section on conflict on film has therefore been added to the biography. But who else could be in the spotlight of the greatest UK film directors on the genre of conflict and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartertoten (talk • contribs) 11:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This section is completely unsourced and full of wp:pov and speculation. It's also not appropriate to list other people's filmographies on Hurst's page. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User Dcfc1988 has been repeatedly deleting content on this page recently and placed the immediately above comment on this section 11 hours ago and in response further source material was then added to the relevant section of this page and to the section they have queried in an effort to assist user Dcfc1988. However user Dcfc then again proceeded to delete the relevant section entry (the heading and everything underneath it as below quoted below) without explaining why he was dissatisfied with the source material that had been added in response to his query and/or engaging in further discussion on this talk page as is encouraged by editors and Dcfc1988's approach to editing is unfair. The information and context is factual and entirely relevant to a proper understanding of the subject of this article Brain Desmond Hurst.

The greatest UK film director in the genre of 'conflict on film'?

The UK accolade of greatest film director in the genre of 'conflict on film' can cause much debate. Potentially the short list could be narrowed to three directors honoured by the Directors Guild of Great Britain under their blue plaque scheme (source www.dggb.org and 'about' and then 'blue plaques') namely, David Lean, Michael Powell and Brian Desmond Hurst.

David Lean's output includes In Which we Serve (1942) The Bridge On the River Kwai (1957) and Lawrence of Arabia (1962).

In terms of the quantity and range of conflict the spotlight switches to Michael Powell (with Emeric pressberger) and Brain Desmond Hurst.

Brian Desmond Hurst

• Ourselves Alone (1936)
• The Lion Has Wings (1939- jointly with Michael Powell)
• A Call For Arms (1940)
• Miss Grant Goes to the Door (1940)
• Dangerous Moonlight (1941)
• A Letter From Ulster (1942)
• Theirs is the Glory (1946)
• Malta Story (1953)
• Simba (1955)
• The Black Tent (1956)

Michael Powell

• The Spy in Black (1939 -jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
• The Lion Has Wings (1939 jointly with Brian Desmond Hurst)
• An Airman's Letter to His Mother (1941)
• 49th Parallel (1942- jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
• One of Our Aircraft Is Missing (1942-jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
• The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp(1943-jointly with Emeic Pressberger )
• The Volunteer (1943-jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
• A Matter of Life and Death (1946 - jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
• The Small Back Room(1949- jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
• The Battle of the River Plate (1956-jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
• Ill Met by Moonlight (1957- jointly with Emeic Pressberger)

All of the above have been sourced at www.imdb.com the authorative film listing organisation and the case for Hurst being the greatest UK film director in the genre of 'conflict on film' is set out in Theirs is the Glory. Arnhem, Hurst and Conflict on Film(see below). Quartertoten (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, what you're calling vandalism is not vandalism. You need to stop doing that. Second, Wikipedia generally doesn't phrase things in the form of a question. We state facts neutrally without performing our own analysis. It seems to me that you're forming a short list based on your own criteria – using honors by the Directors Guild of Great Britain. Unless a professional film critic or scholar has already used this criteria to form a short list, you can't do that on Wikipedia. Also, the IMDb is not authoritative – it's an unreliable source comprising user-generated content. That means it can't be used for citations on Wikipedia. I see you finally added a source for the analysis itself, Theirs is the Glory. Arnhem, Hurst and Conflict on Film. This is good, but what you need to do is describe the conclusions reached by the authors of that book without injecting any of your own analysis or conclusions, such as coming up with a "short list" of potential competitors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The improper editing has now ceased (I'd used the term 'vandalism'thoughtfully given that we were seeing repeated deletion earlier this month on a daily basis by a single user without any without informed or helpful comment of a large and helpful section).The section is more properly referenced and this must be seen as a positive enabling us to move on, with thanks. Quartertoten (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The section you are insisting on including here, based on a clearly fringe view in a single book, pushes the boundaries of WP:Undue, WP:Fringe, and WP:OR. I note that you have also placed substantially the same text on the Theirs is the Glory page, and a shorter version referencing the same book on every single one of the other Hurst films you have listed here. I would suggest that that text is all that we need here and on Theirs is the Glory, and that on the other pages merely referencing the book in the sources would be more than sufficient. If you want to argue for Hurst being of the prominence you clearly think, you need to bring more to the table than you have so far. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The facts speak from themselves; are properly sourced and therefore remain. If you dispute the film listings and directorships then state with some facts. Hence undoing.Quartertoten (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Facts do not "speak for themselves". We need reliable sources to reference claims like yours. Furthermore, listing someone else's filmography in an article about Hurst (or one of his films) is irrelevant to said article. Dcfc1988 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User dcfc1988 has repeatedly deleted an important, properly sourced section which underlines Hurst's significant achievement as a director on the genre of conflict on film and, necessarily, is put into context with another potential 'greatest' UK film director. I could understand it if dcfc1988 believed any of the films were not conflict films and/or were not directed by Hurst. The facts do speak for themselves it is just a shame that users like dcfc1988 keep coming back and just delete content and has been doing so for 2 months. What a shame.Quartertoten (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to put down the stick and more aware from the equine corpse. Essentially you have imposed a lengthy argument of your own making, based on original research such as tallying up Blue Plaques, and seeking to justify it by citing a single book that really needs only to be mentioned in passing. I will correct the text accordingly. Please try to understand that this is how Wikipedia works. You don't get to push your own pet theories, no matter how "significant" you think they are. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary Nick Cooper- your repeated deletion of facts and important context in the life of Hurst is based on your opinion and I prefer fact as does wiki and the section is accordingly re-inserted. Can I suggest you move on, please?Quartertoten (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You have provided a single reference to back up your own original research, which is simply not acceptable. Wikipedia is not the place to push your pet theory, and certainly not in the utterly non-standard fashion you insist on using. Apart from myself, you have also been reverted by Dcfc1988 and NinjaRobotPirate, so the consensus is clearly against you. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The information is properly referenced and important to the context. Unfortunately some users feel able to just delete sections without comment (and then edit war in the hope their deletion prevails)and this approach without logic or explanation could be considered a form of vandalism. The issue has been highlighted in the talk section of this page and i would urge deleters to talk and not just deletete and use informed comment to correct any matters that they believe are factually incorrect. I stand over all of the facts in the stated section which must remain and random recurring deletions without comment or with poor opinion will hopefully reduce.Quartertoten (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but to be blunt, the idea that "the information is properly referenced" is utter nonsense. Basically your opening text sets up a question, and then cites the fact that the Directors Guild of Great Britain has erected blue plaques to four directors, Hurst, Lean, and Powell being three of them. So what? The DGGB doesn't say anything about the relative merits of the individuals they have honoured, and certainly not along the lines you are trying to push. The only purpose of the citation is to narrow down your own shortlist.

This is then followed by two lists of films by Hurst and Powell respectively. Seriously? You think that's encyclopaedic content? You then round it off by citing Truedale and Smith's book. Sorry, but that is absolutely not good enough, not least because it breaches Wikipedia's rules on original research and undue prominence. Truedale and Smith alone have legitimately advanced this theory, but all that is needed is a brief acknowledgement of that. We do not need your "working out" of the theory, blue plaques and lists and all. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This is all a bit disrespectful and sad to read. Precisely which of the clearly chronicled films do you believe is not directed by Hurst and which do you believe are not of the conflict genre? Armed with some specific input on any potential correction I'd be happy to consider a correction but I need some precision, please. Then turning to authorities I think the Director's Guild of Great Britain is a good 'list'. What is better and why? Quartertoten (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Hurst directed those films. It is not appropriate to push unsubstantiated claims about his films on Wikipedia as you are trying to do. It is also not appropriate to list films that other people directed on Hurst's page. Dcfc1988 (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I am content to listen to reasoned and proper debate on the (proper) inclusion of a section on Hurst's significant body of work on the genre of conflict on film. It is unacceptable to continually revert and delete a section with is properly constructed, accurate and properly sourced. It is disappointing that invitations to suggest with precision what should be amended and why or how the section could be developed is met with the recurring action of just deleting the whole section. In 9 years of working with and on this page the unwelcome attention and recurring deletion is sad to see. Hurst deserves better. The inclusion of the Powell comparison is relevant to the conflict on film genre and Hurst's achievement.Quartertoten (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The film lists are certainly not "relevant," given that their only purpose is for you to narrow down a shortlist of your own devising in the furtherance of a theory that does not appear to have gained any widespread traction beyond Truesdale and Smith's book. The latter is mentioned in the text, so there is no need for you to disproportionately argue the case.

As noted above, the only other citation you have offered is proof of the fact that the DGGB has erected memorial plaques to only Hurst, Powell, and two other directors. The Guild does not appear to be making any claims about the relative merits of these directors, either overall or in any particular genre, so is not relevant. I would note that English Heritage's scheme also includes plaques to film directors/producers in London, which includes Powell (with Pressburger), but not the other three the DGGB does, so the latter's may simply be regarded as "filling in the gaps," notwithstanding the fact that their Hurst one is not in London. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

An appeal to some users of this page, please. I have been editing pages for 10 years and have never encountered this sort approach that some users employ to suppress information that is important context on an entry. Unfortunately a small number of users over a number months have suddenly entered this page and deleted a large section based on opinionated commentary and/or vague assertions. Some users were more helpful and in response the section in question has been rechecked and is factually correct. Furthermore some additional source material has been added by me in the hope that this recurring deletion will stop and I repeatedly urge users to contribute, with precision, any factual errors (which I will review and correct, if appropriate)to the talk pages and allow the section to be developed. The conduct of some users is very sad to see and Hurst deserves better. I suggest that the act of deleting a large section on a wiki page without any substantive comment or without first using the talk pages (as I repeatedly urge) is effectively vandalism as it goes against the spirit of wiki. The section is relevant, factual, sourced and vital to the context of the life of Hurst and should remain and evolve via discussion on the talk pages and the recurring deletion should stop. I am prepared to devote whatever time and hours is necessary to evolve this section using factually correct information to ensure that the entry on Hurst is correct. Thank you to any users who take the time to read this positioning as I attempt to rebalance the views of some users who have suddenly entered the debate on this page.Quartertoten (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"Factually correct" is not the yardstick we work to on Wikipedia, but rather we reflect what reliable sources say. The only sources you have provided are the non-relevant list of DGGB blue plaques, and Truedale and Smith's book. It is perfectly acceptable to mention the latter briefly, but not for you to play The X Factor to hammer home the point in a manner of you own devising. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The book is a relevant and reliable source- are you saying it is not? I do not understand your emotive use of language about the x-factor- if you specify your point I will gladly deal with it? The DGGB blue plaques is relevant as far as accolades and recognition of film directors- why do you discount this? The film information was also corroborated by Imdb (the film database) which is, as far as I am aware, a reliable source of information on the films- should that be added or is there a more preferred film source you can suggest? Finally Nicks what are you actaully proposing to assist in editing or contextualise the section so that it may grow? Just deleting a section remains in my view a suppression of vital, informed and relevant context on the life of Hurst and your suppression of this seems unfair to the wiki community which is, I would suggest, the greater damage caused by your actions. Quartertoten (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The book in and of itself is notable, and is properly referenced in the text as it stands at this moment in time. It does need your ridiculous join-the-dots elaboration. A brief factual mention of Hurst's DGGB plaque in the "recognition and honours" section will be fine; using it to bolster your original research is not. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I have had a go at re-writing this section- can this work?

Conflict on film legacy

The case for Hurst being the greatest UK film director in the genre of 'conflict on film' is set out in Theirs is the Glory. Arnhem, Hurst and Conflict on Film which showed why Hurst, as a trained artist, "was an enigma, but a master of the genre, and at his very best when focusing on the subject of conflict on the vast canvas of film".[1]

Brian Desmond Hurst's conflict films chronicle four decades of conflict from the 1920s to the 1950s:

   Ourselves Alone (1936)- about the 1920's conflict in Ireland.
   The Lion Has Wings (1939- jointly with Michael Powell)- about conflict at the end of the 1930s and 'preparing the nation for the war ahead and the vital role of the RAF'[1]
   A Call For Arms (1940)which is 'A rallying call for war production and more women to work in the factories.'[1]
   Miss Grant Goes to the Door (1940)which is about 'preparing, but not alarming, the nation for an invasion by Germany.'[1]
   Dangerous Moonlight (1941)which is about 'the fall of Poland and how her airmen came to the rescue of Britain'[1]
   A Letter From Ulster (1942)which shows you need to 'treat your allies well'.[1]
   Theirs is the Glory (1946)which is 'the definitive film on Arnhem; it will remain the veterans lasting tribute to their comrades that did not return.'[1]
   Malta Story (1953) which is about the 'isolated island of Malta in the Second World War ... and ...how we spend ourselves for the common good'.[1]
   Simba (1955)about 'Kenya,the Mau Mau and the end of colonial rule... and...you must makefriends with these people, as otherwise you'll findyourself not fighting a few thousand fanatics, but five million angry people.[1]
   The Black Tent (1956) which is about the the Second World War in the North African desert and 'a brother's loss and his adventure to find the truth'.[1]

In terms of Hurst's status amongst the greatest of the UK film directors on the genre of conflict three of the four directors honoured by the Directors Guild of Great Britain under their blue plaque scheme[2]

According to Imdb (the internet film database) David Lean's conflict film output includes In Which we Serve (1942) The Bridge On the River Kwai (1957) and Lawrence of Arabia (1962).

From the same source, Michael Powell's conflict film output includes the following conflict films:

   The Spy in Black (1939 -jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
   The Lion Has Wings (1939 jointly with Brian Desmond Hurst)
   An Airman's Letter to His Mother (1941)
   49th Parallel (1942- jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
   One of Our Aircraft Is Missing (1942-jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
   The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp(1943-jointly with Emeic Pressberger )
   The Volunteer (1943-jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
   A Matter of Life and Death (1946 - jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
   The Small Back Room(1949- jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
   The Battle of the River Plate (1956-jointly with Emeic Pressberger)
   Ill Met by Moonlight (1957- jointly with Emeic Pressberger)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartertoten (talk • contribs) 12:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 

Stop! Stop! Stop! Seriously, you simply elaborating on your pet theory is NOT the way forwards. We mention the Truedale and Smith book and what it says - THAT IS ENOUGH! Nick Cooper (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I am content to debate this rationally but your throw away lines and contempt for the facts is sad to see. The conflict on film legacy is fact. Could I ask you please to stop suppressing this section, cease the emotional langauage and engage is some dignified and factual comment. Quartertoten (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It has been explained to you time and time again that the form of text you want to introduce is absolutely not how things are done on Wikipedia. The Truedale and Smith book, and its conclusion, are properly mentioned. You presenting your own argument as to why you agree with that conclusion is simply not acceptable. It is original research, and also gives undue prominence to a fringe theory. You might think it's true, I might think it's true, but that's not the issue. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you are deflecting Nick Cooper. Returning to the point- a list of Hurst's ten conflict films under the heading 'Conflict on film legacy' is not original research (as you suggest) it is just a list under a relevant headingthat does form a vital part of this film director's legacy. Your repeated deletion of the section is suppressing good content. When challenged your resorting to 'equine corpse', 'utter nonsense' and 'ridiculous' (to select just a few of your contributions to this debate) are all fairly unhelpful as is the repeated deletion of an entire section rather than engaging on the talk pages to propose edits or reforms. I am happy to discuss how the list is presented and contextualised; I am happy to discuss the list and have challenged you to define any that may believe are not conflict and may not be directed by Hurst and as far as I can see you do accept that they are all directed by Hurst and all are on the genre of conflict. So returning to the point of this (rather long section on this talk page about the 'Conflict on film legacy') and taking my suggestion above (12:22, 7 February 2019) what do you propose in terms of the content, please?Quartertoten (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the purpose of Wikipedia, or how it is edited. Hurst's filmography is already on the page. It does not need your additional selective list - along with an equivalent one for Powell - which serves only to argue your own pet theory. We do not need a "conflict on film legacy" section because the only reliable source we have for the theory that Hurst was the best at it is the Truedale and Smith book, which is already mentioned and its apparent conclusion explained. Nothing you can do by tweaking away at the edges of what you want to do is going to change that. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You are incorrect and are minimising the issue. Again you are using emotive language intended to belittle my contributions ('pet theory' etc). I do recognise that the Powell list could be dropped but I think it is worthy of inclusion for context. I've made the point before but one more time (I guess) the 'conflict on film legacy' is NOT a theory it is a fact and a defined grouping of Hurst's films with some additional supportive narrative. It is factual, correct and deserving of inclusion. Your repeated suppression of this defined listing by repeatedly deleting it rather than evolving the list and context and your use of emotive language to force your views just perplexes me. Quartertoten (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Throughout all of this, the only source you have produced is Truedale and Smith. If this "conflict on film legacy" is not a fringe theory, then where are all the other critics or film historians discussing it? You have had multiple editors - not just me - all telling you exactly the same thing: that your text breaches Wikipedia practice, and cannot be included. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It isn't sufficient to argue that content is factual; per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Further, per WP:SYNTH, editors must "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" or "combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Moreover, per WP:NOTESSAY, "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses."

It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." as strongly expressed in detail at WP:NPOV. Breaches of this fundamental policy are clearly indicated when the advice at WP:WORDSTOWATCH is ignored and specific examples from that part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style occur in the article, but merely eliminating such words cannot eliminate structural bias or turn an essay into an encyclopedia article. Also, sometimes editors who only work on a subject with which they are particularly closely acquainted can be surprised to find that Wikipedia's guidelines on editing with a conflicts of interest at WP:COI cover much more than mere financial advantage and extend to family members, friends, authors and more.

These are just a few of the many ways editors who focus on a few specific articles can often be unaware of many of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and consensus-based practices and react with some surprise when editors who have developed a broader experience of Wikipedia chance upon those articles and seek to apply those policies, guidelines and practices. It can be bewildering when several editors with no obvious connection with the subject or each other seem to arrive from nowhere to delete material that's taken time and effort to write. In such circumstances, it can be helpful to read the policies and guidelines initially to understand their purpose and function in building the encyclopedia and subsequently to consider how they constrain oneself, but not once more to find loopholes - there's even a guideline WP:GAME on that! :) 92.19.28.243 (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I have left this for a week as I just wish to bring this talk thread back to the two issues under discussion.

1. Should there be a section on conflict on film - NinjaRobotPirate amended the section title to 'Conflict on film legacy' and I thought this was a good suggestion and perhaps this can remain.

2 The content of that section. I think the listing of Hurst's conclict films is proper, encyclopedic and factually correct.

Overall I think the page has tightened up to good effect since I started editing it 10 years ago and it reads well and is factual and some recent tidying up by userNick Cooper has improved things by removing some unnecessary speculation. I am proposing to insert a section 'Conflict on Film legacy' tomorrow but omitting the Powell and Lean comparators in the hope this can work. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartertoten (talk • contribs) 09:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Quartertoten, in adding the above comment, you deleted IP 92.19.28.243's comments of 9 February. Removing other editor's comments from Talk pages is expressly not allowed. Please take more care next time.

I also note that you reinstated the inappropriate section heading formatting around "The greatest UK film director in the genre of 'conflict on film'?" above. You should not do this, as it creates a new section here as per the Contents box, thus splitting what follows from the paragraph above, which was all part of the same comment you added on 10 January. Leaving the heading in bold makes it clear that it is a heading you are suggesting, without breaking up your own comment, and disrupting the section headings on this page. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I had absolutely no idea about this but if that was the case thank you for reinstating but please be assured nothing was intended. Quartertoten (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, something else you should not do it add your own comments within the comments of others, as you did with the above. Comments should be added after the previous commenter's signature, and preferable indented using colons at the start of each paragraph, so that the flow of the conversation is clear. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, I had absolutely no idea about this but if that was the case thank you for amending but please be assured nothing was intended. Quartertoten (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If we're talking about an edit I made, I changed the section name to "legacy", which is what Wikipedia usually calls these sections in biographies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes NinjaRobotPirate I thought it was a good edit. Thank you.Quartertoten (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean you putting section heading formatting in the middle of your comments on this Talk page here. I note that you have done the same thing again below, which I will also correct. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I have inserted the following section today in the light of the above discussion which is condensed and removes the comparators to Lean and Powell.

Conflict on film legacy

Brian Desmond Hurst's conflict films chronicle four decades of conflict from the 1920s to the 1950s:

• Ourselves Alone (1936)- the 1920's conflict in Ireland.
• The Lion Has Wings (1939- jointly with Michael Powell)- conflict at the end of the 1930s and preparing the nation for the war ahead and the vital role of the RAF.
• A Call For Arms (1940) - a rallying call for war production and to get more women to work in the factories.
• Miss Grant Goes to the Door (1940)- preparing, but not alarming, the nation for an invasion by Germany.
• Dangerous Moonlight (1941)- the fall of Poland and how her airmen came to the rescue of Britain.
• Theirs is the Glory (1946) - veterans of the Battle of Arnhem retold their story.
• Malta Story (1953) - the isolated island of Malta in the Second World War.
• Simba (1955)- Kenya,the Mau Mau and the end of colonial rule in the 1950s and which includes the dialogue line "you must make friends with these people, as otherwise you'll find yourself not fighting a few thousand fanatics, but five million angry people."
• The Black Tent (1956) which is about the the Second World War in the North African desert and a brother's loss and his adventure to find the truth.

Quartertoten (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Right. So your answer to concerns about original research is to add even more of it? I simply cannot believe how you are utterly failing to understand what the issue is. Please, please, please try to understand that what you want to do is completely unacceptable. I am going to revert your additions yet again, and would implore you not to reinstate them. As you have been told repeatedly, the only source for your claim is Truesdale and Smith's book, which is adequately referenced. You just cannot elaborate on it in this manner. End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would respectably point out that the proposed Conflict on Film Legacy section has omitted the Powell and Lean comparators that you objected to and reduces the content which is important, factual and encylopedic. I do (yet again, and with the greatest of respect) need to bring this talk thread back to the two issues under discussion.

1. Should there be a section on conflict on film - NinjaRobotPirate amended the section title to 'Conflict on film legacy' and I thought this was a good suggestion and perhaps this can remain.

2 The content of that section. I think the listing of Hurst's conclict films is proper, encyclopedic and factually correct.

Rather than just deleting whole sections I would ask that you propose edits to enhance the section which is important and correct. Please also try to do without resorting to emotional language or comments that seek to belittle the editing of others. In the circumstances, your deletion is undone. Thank you.Quartertoten (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I am staggered that you continue to ignore what you are being told. The entire section is inappropriate. You have been told this on multiple occasions, and by multiple different editors, all working independently. Literally no editor has supported you. The issue is very simple, so I will explain it yet again.

Trusdale and Smith have - apparently (we only have your interpretation of the book) - declared Hurst to be one of - if not the - greatest UK film director in the genre of "conflict on film." This is already stated in the article lead. It should be reflected in the general text, and I think it was at some point, but it was deleted when you changed it to your umpteenth iteration of your inappropriate text. It is, however, the only source you have been able to come up with for this assertion, which suggests that it is not a widely-held view, making the elaboration on it that you are so insistent on quite inappropriate.

It was not just the Powell film list or the mention of him that was objected to, but list of Hurst's "conflict" films, as well. This is simply unnecessary. You having added a few additional comments for each production actually makes it worse, not better.

I am going to delete this section yet again, but will move the concluding paragraph to the Writings section, which I am going to rename. I would implore you to accept this, otherwise escalation of this dispute may be inevitable, if not by me, then by someone else.

I think we all understand that you are passionate about Hurst and his work, but you need to be far more objective than you have been.

As an aside, I see from the text that AE Smith is described as the, "administrator of the Hurst Estate." This puts a different light on His work on Hurst, which is relied upon so heavily as sources. I'm not saying it should be discounted, but there may well be a conflict of interest, and it would be better to look for a wide range of opinion on Hurst. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Alistair Sim in Scrooge (1951) "Christmas, Sir, is a humbug. Good day".jpg
• Hurstmacquittysoundstage wiki.jpg
• TITG marketing 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 February 2019

Delete speculation from the Later Years section, e.g. change "You cannot help but wonder whether Hurst was thinking back to his colleagues that he left behind at Gallipoli especially when you watch the moving opening scene featuring 10 men in a Nissen hut preparing for battle and the closing scene featuring only 2 returning. What we do know is that" to "". 92.19.28.243 (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 February 2019

Delete quotation of user-generated content on imdb.com as if authoritative or of enyclopedic note. i.e. replace "The review on imdb.com comments that "This first of its kind in propaganda films of World War II, shows the might of the British Empire and its eagerness to stand up to the oppressors of morality and free will. Crude but effective propaganda cinema that sets the tone for things to come."[13]" with "". 92.19.28.243 (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with both of these suggestions. I think it is actually the case that constant fire-fighting over the contentious "conflict on film" section has drawn attention away from the fact that there is far too much POV commentary and speculation elsewhere on the page. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

More emotive langauage Nick Cooper? Again disappointing to see this form of input and I'd suggest its probably better for you to specify with precision the "far too much POV commentary and speculation elsewhere on the page" then perhaps we can review and jointly edit? Thank you.Quartertoten (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Imdb has no place in a WP-article about Ireland's most prolific film director during the 20th century except as EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The above-mentioned line speculating about what Hurst may or may not have thought is a prime example. In addition to that, many of the citations are vague and do not seem to have been double-checked. Some are unpublished or self-published sources that are inherently not reliable. There also seems to be an over-reliance on the works of AE Smith. If Hurst is really so prestigious, a wider range of opinions should be available. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Nick CooperI wanted to wait for 6 months to see what Nick Cooper could add in terms of facts or information on Hurst but see nothing has been contributed by way of information to help expand this page. Surely you have something to add after being so vocal about what should not be allowed?Quartertoten (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yet again, you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. There is no requirement to continue tweaking articles just for the sake of it. If someone comes up with new and properly-cited material, they're free to add it. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"Conflict on film" genre

I notice that "conflict on film" is not mentioned in Wikipedia's articles Film genre or List of genres#Film and television formats and genres, or in Template:Film genres. The main results when searching the web for "conflict on film" are the Truesdale/Smith book "Theirs is the glory : Arnhem, Hurst and conflict on film" that is used extensively as a reference for this article on Hurst. Truesdale/Smith do refer once to "the warfare and conflict genre" but do not seem to claim that a genre of "conflict on film" exists, while their phraseology can in any case be eccentric (for example, the co-author's introduction begins "The spectrum of conflict is a powerful catalyst for change..."). In discussing whether Wikipedia can declare Hurst the leading director in the "genre conflict on film" based only on this source, original research and editorial synthesis, we don't seem to have considered that there is no such generally recognised genre, no reliable sources for its existence, and no crown of leading director in it. 79.73.244.91 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

That's very interesting to hear. As you will see from the discussion under Talk:Brian Desmond Hurst#Conflict on Film above, the introduction of material relating to this claim has been very contentious, but it has been accepted in good faith that the references to Truesdale and Smith accurately reflect their book's content. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was involved in that discussion before my IP changed. It would seem that in taking the theme of "conflict on film" of Truesdale and Smith's book book and chapter titles, declaring it a genre and declaring Hurst the leader in that genre, basing this on Quartertoten's own lists of films, Quartertoten may have gone beyond that source. That is why I recommended reading Wikipedia:No original research and especially WP:SYNTH.

I suggest the end of the last sentence of the lead, "and has also been described as one of the UK's greatest film directors in the genre conflict on film", needs to be removed as even if Truesdale and Smith did say so in so many words, it does not present a balanced picture of Hurst's reputation to describe him as great in a genre that is not even generally recognised as a genre. 79.73.244.91 (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

User NinjaRobotPirate on 12:11, 10 January 2019 in the 'conflict on film' section above changed the heading of the wiki section to 'Conflict on film legacy' which I thought was a good edit and they added ' I see you finally added a source for the analysis itself, Theirs is the Glory. Arnhem, Hurst and Conflict on Film. This is good, but what you need to do is describe the conclusions reached by the authors of that book without injecting any of your own analysis or conclusions, such as coming up with a "short list" of potential competitors.' This was done in an effort to enhance the evolving section. The two points that I am returning to again to help keep the discussion focussed on the issues are:

1. Should there be a section on the Hurst page 'Conflict on film legacy'; and then

2 The content of that section. I believe the listing of Hurst's conflict films is proper, encyclopedic and factually correct. I would suggest the section would be enhanced by including the year of production and the conflict era depicted. NinjaRobotPirate would appreciate your thoughts?

Finally, on the list of films specified in the referenced book talk suggest/asks if I 'may have gone beyond that source'. I am able to confirm that the ten films referenced in the book are as follows

• Ourselves Alone (1936)- the 1920's conflict in Ireland.
• The Lion Has Wings (1939- jointly with Michael Powell)- conflict at the end of the 1930s and preparing the nation for the war ahead and the vital role of the RAF.
• A Call For Arms (1940) - a rallying call for war production and to get more women to work in the factories.
• Miss Grant Goes to the Door (1940)- preparing, but not alarming, the nation for an invasion by Germany.
• Dangerous Moonlight (1941)- the fall of Poland and how her airmen came to the rescue of Britain.
• A Letter From Ulster (1942)- about the US army training for the Second World War in Northern Ireland.
• Theirs is the Glory (1946) - veterans of the Battle of Arnhem retold their story.
• Malta Story (1953) - the isolated island of Malta in the Second World War.
• Simba (1955)- Kenya,the Mau Mau and the end of colonial rule in the 1950s and which includes the dialogue line "you must make friends with these people, as otherwise you'll find yourself not fighting a few thousand fanatics, but five million angry people."
• The Black Tent (1956) which is about the the Second World War in the North African desert and a brother's loss and his adventure to find the truth.

I hope this helps the discussion. Thank you. Quartertoten (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You're still trying to manufacture a case from a single reference, which - in light of 79.73.244.91's comments above, now seems questionable in itself. If Truesdale and Smith are not actually calling Hurst, "one of the UK's greatest film directors in the genre conflict on film" (or words to that effect), then Wikipedia shouldn't be, either. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note the entry we are evolving does not call Hurst "one of the UK's greatest film directors in the genre conflict on film". Secondly, the context seems properly contextualised and sourced.

Proposed section heading: Conflict on Film legacy

Proposed content:

Theirs is the Glory: Arnhem, Hurst and Conflict on Film takes Hurst's Battle of Arnhem epic as its centrepiece and then chronicles Hurst's life and experiences during the First World War and looks in- depth at his work chronicling conflict over four decades from the 1920s to the 1950s. It sets out the case that Hurst, as a trained artist, "was an enigma, but a master of the genre, and at his very best when focusing on the subject of conflict on the vast canvas of film". (this is the concluding line on the dust jacket cover of the book and will be refernced in the final version). Hurst's ten conflict films were:

• Ourselves Alone (1936)- the 1920's conflict in Ireland.
• The Lion Has Wings (1939- jointly with Michael Powell)- conflict at the end of the 1930s and preparing the nation for the war ahead and the vital role of the RAF.
• A Call For Arms (1940) - a rallying call for war production and to get more women to work in the factories.
• Miss Grant Goes to the Door (1940)- preparing, but not alarming, the nation for an invasion by Germany.
• Dangerous Moonlight (1941)- the fall of Poland and how her airmen came to the rescue of Britain.
• A Letter From Ulster (1942)- about the US army training for the Second World War in Northern Ireland.
• Theirs is the Glory (1946) - veterans of the Battle of Arnhem retold their story.
• Malta Story (1953) - the isolated island of Malta in the Second World War.
• Simba (1955)- Kenya,the Mau Mau and the end of colonial rule in the 1950s and which includes the dialogue line "you must make friends with these people, as otherwise you'll find yourself not fighting a few thousand fanatics, but five million angry people."
• The Black Tent (1956) which is about the the Second World War in the North African desert and a brother's loss and his adventure to find the truth.

The two points that I am returning to again to help keep the discussion focussed on the issues are:

1. Should there be a section on the Hurst page 'Conflict on film legacy'; and then

2 The content of that section. I believe the listing of Hurst's conflict films is proper, encyclopedic and factually correct.

I would further suggest the section would be enhanced by including the year of production and the conflict era depicted but would be happy for others to suggest refinements to the supporting 'detail'.

Thank you Quartertoten (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

So basically it comes down to you thinking that, because Hurst made a lot of films about or set within the backdrop of war and conflict, there should be a specific section for it? I don't see the point. In a narrative account of his principal productions, obviously there should be some passing mention of their subject matter, but that doesn't mean we should have a whole section solely on his "conflict films," listing every single one individually, and saying why they "count." Basically all it would be doing is saying, "Hurst made a lot of films about conflict." So what?

I also don't see where the "legacy" aspect comes in, or even what is being meant by it. Simply having left such a body of work? It certainly doesn't seem to be in the sense of an artistic legacy that has had a direct and clearly stated effect on other directors who came after him. If all it comes down to is, "Hurst made a lot of films about conflict, and we can still watch them," it's simply not good enough. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, the listing of Hurst's conflict films is important, properly constructed, referenced, encyclopedic and factually correct. Perhaps you could suggest some edits to the proposed section to enhance it or if you believe an entry or film is in some way incorrect perhaps you can say so and explain why. This would give us a basis to move forward from. Thank you. Quartertoten (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You have failed to come up with any evidence why it is important. It is not properly constructed at all, being simply a list of films which you think should be included, and in that context it is certainly not encyclopaedic. "Factually correct" does not actually come into it. You need to find reliable sources (plural) that define Hurst's work in the terms you are so keen on being presented here. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion on the relative importance of Hurst's work on conflict on film but it should not outweigh an important, properly constructed, referenced, encyclopedic and factually correct entry and just deleting the entry rather than leaving it for others to build on seems incorrect. I am therefore inserting the above section and trust you leave it there and that over time you may be able to introduce some content to this page. Thank you. Quartertoten (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You have been told on multiple occasions by multiple editors that what you want to do is not acceptable. This is not "opinion," it is how Wikipedia works. Consensus is universally against you. If you reinsert your original research yet again, it will be reverted, either by myself or someone else. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nick Cooper I do need to revert to you (again) to try and focus on the facts, please; 1. I ask you to specify if you disagree that any of the 10 listed films are not on 'conflict' ( a yes or no please). 2. Then please do you agree with the cited source is correct ( a yes or no please). 3. You bring your opinion that Hurst's work on conflict on film is not important and that your seek to suppress this section by repeatedly deleting it and then suggesting to others that they should also do this. I have invited you to add or amend the additional words which I have added to position the 10 films across the four decades of chronicled conflict but you have offered nothing apart from threatening to revert it again or asking others to do this for you. 4. Can you specify the 'multiple editors' who have specified a view which backs up your conclusion 'consensus is universally against you' in relation to the section as revised and proposed immediately above by me at 9.55 hrs 19 February 2019 and which I believe is important, properly constructed, referenced, encyclopedic and factually correct. I am not aware of any that input on this revised piece and think that emotional language, used out of context that seeks to belittle me is unfair. Thank you Quartertoten (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You keep repeating that you believe your text is "important, properly constructed, referenced, encyclopedic and factually correct". We do realise you believe that. Unfortunately, that repetition and your repeated calls to get back on track and focus give the impression that you want to ignore Wikipedia's principles, policies and practices. I gave you some pointers to useful policies and guidelines but you returned to your assertions without any indication that you'd read or grasped anything. In that situation, your repeated assertions that your text is "enyclopedic" can't persuade anyone. Please can you correct that impression? 79.73.244.91 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment but (and with the greatest respect) your input is vague and deflects. The article has, in fact, been substantially revised and the section given a new heading which counters your assertion. You sign under a new name which has been created a few days ago. Under what name were you previously contributing to these talk pages? Quartertoten (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

In order:

1 - Whether the films can be classed as "conflict" is immaterial.

2 - If you mean Truesdale & Smith, it has been suggested that it does not back up your assertions. Editors are not expected to go to the time and expense of cross-checking non-online sources, but references to them used by those who have are taken in good faith until shown otherwise.

3 - This completely mischaracterises, a) my views, b) the nature of the general objection to what you want to do, and c) betrays a serious misunderstanding on your part about how Wikipedia works.

4 - The editors who have reverted your original research: Dcfc1988, NinjaRobotPirate, myself, and Flapjacktastic. IP 92.19.28.243/79.73.244.91 has also raised the same concerns on this Talk page. I do not see a single editor backing you up.

Nick Cooper (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Cooperbut on the contrary and again, in order;

1. The subject is, as you know, a heading 'conflict on film legacy' so confirming (or disagreeing) with the list is not immaterial but is central to the whole issue.

2. Suggested? Please be specific as the citation is quoted, accurate and sourced.

3. I stand over what was written.

4. As I thought I am correct. None of these editors have input on this revised piece that I have input as specified at my point 4 above. Further NinjaRobotPirate helpfully amended the heading to 'Conflict on film legacy'. User [[User:Dcfc1988|Dcfc1988] has much comment on their talk pages about 'disruptive editing' here https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Dcfc1988

Quartertoten (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Two things: 1) please stop pinging me to this discussion, and 2) stop saying that I changed the heading to "conflict on film legacy". I did not do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate If so I apologise as I had your input on 10 January 2019 11:59 on a Hurst main page edit and your helpful comment as "there's at least some basic attempt to cite sources here, so maybe editing is the better solution". Around that time the heading was changed to 'Conflict on film legacy' by an edit by another user (not me). Just wanted to do this FINAL ping so you could read this and that's it from me. thank you and, again, my apologies.Quartertoten (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I am asking for second time today for people to stop pinging me to this talk page. This content dispute can be resolved without anyone pinging me. Read WP:DR for your options. As far as that edit goes, see Special:Diff/878375888. You made the edit. Not me. I'm tired of saying this. I'm sorry that I ever edited this page. Now, leave me alone and stop pinging me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No problems with that- it was a simple apology to you, that's all and referencing (so you could check it in case I am wrong) your contribution on the 'conflict on film legacy' discussion "there's at least some basic attempt to cite sources here, so maybe editing is the better solution" (and upon which I agree is the better solution and have also been encouraging and have done myself). Thank you Quartertoten (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

1 - I said it was immaterial whether the films can be classed as "conflict" or not, because such a list should not be included in the first place. Even if we accept that a "conflict on film legacy" section is needed, it should not be bulked out with an "X counts because Y" list like you are proposing.

2 - In your most recent attempt, you cited Truesdale and Hurst at the end of the paragraph beginning with, "The case for Hurst being the greatest UK film director in the genre of 'conflict on film' is set out in Theirs is the Glory. Arnhem, Hurst and Conflict on Film," and including the quote stating, " "was an enigma, but a master of the genre, and at his very best when focusing on the subject of conflict on the vast canvas of film." The latter is not in dispute (yet), but IP 92.19.28.243/79.73.244.91 cast doubt on the former. This goes to the heart of the issue. Do Truesdale & Smith define a "conflict on film" genre, and do they assert or conclude that Hurst is "the greatest UK film director" (or words to that effect) in it? Even if they do, it would be self-evidently a fringe/minority opinion, not backed up elsewhere.

3 - You claimed: "You bring your opinion that Hurst's work on conflict on film is not important." This is you trying to read my mind. The issue is not what I believe, but what we can prove with reliable secondary sources in a manner that is encyclopedic, balanced, and accurate.

4 - So what? What you are proposing is actually a more transgressive form of what you were trying to include previously, which multiple editors rejected. You can tweak it all you want, but that doesn't get past the fact that it is the basic idea of what you want to do that is unacceptable.

Nick Cooper (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Is your opinion and you are entitled to that. I in contrast believe a 'Conflict of film legacy' section is needed for the reasons I have stated.

2. I am glad that the reference that Hurst "was an enigma, but a master of the genre, and at his very best when focusing on the subject of conflict on the vast canvas of film." is accepted as correct. That is what i am using.

3. The content listing is accurate (please be assured on that)- there is really not much more I can say.

4. I echo the words the words of one of your cited 'contributors' "there's at least some basic attempt to cite sources here, so maybe editing is the better solution" I hope you have had a chance to confirm this given the precision of the source edit I have stated.

Reluctantly I have concluded that you are obsessed with suppressing this important section and there is little more I can contribute to this discussion. I stand over all my comments made with reference to the tactics you employ including but not limited to : encouraging other to delete the section; your repeated use of emotional language; your repeated attempts to belittle me and then your distortion of the contributions of others to try and fit them into the current debate on a radically different proposed section. I have nothing further to add to this discussion which i entered into in good faith and now wish I had not given what I have encountered. Quartertoten (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

1 - It is my "opinion" that what you want to do breaches multiple Wikipedia policies, a view echoed by other editors. What you "believe" is not good enough. If you can't find reliable secondary sources that are clearly saying the same thing, it can't be included.

2 - So basically you are now acknowledging that you have no sources other than the single quote from Truesdale & Smith?

3 - Again, "accuracy" is not enough. You stringing accurate facts together is still original research.

4 - You need more than one quote.

I am sorry that you have taken multiple editors telling you the same thing over and over again so personally, but your ad hominem attack on me does you no favours. Wikipedia is not a fansite where enthusiasts can push their own personal theories without challenge. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nick CooperI have no more to say to you on this I'm afraid, as per my preceding entry. Quartertoten (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There is not such genre, you mean war film.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Slatersteven Thank you. I think that's the US style and if that is what is needed and acceptable then no quibbles from me if you want to edit the section title to War Film Legacy Quartertoten (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Should the all of the war film content be consolidated under the one section? Thoughts?Quartertoten (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No. No-one agrees with you. Stop peddling your original research. Numerous editors have reverted your edits. Please stop. Dcfc1988 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've made a start on consolidation. The article still uses lengthy quotations where direct statement would suffice, and conversely uses WP:PEACOCK terms and WP:EDITORIAL statements in Wikipedia's voice, in breach of WP:NPOV. Much remains to be done. 79.73.244.91 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)