Talk:Alfred Hitchcock

Treatment of women in life and in films

I'm not weighing in with a judgment, simply observing that it's surprising this article doesn't give at least a little more weight to the various controversies around this topic. It's not necessary to decide one way or the other, merely to note a little more prominently that the controversy continues though conclusive evidence is difficult to find outside Ms. Hedren's accusations. Again, all I'm suggesting is that the controversies be acknowledged a little more prominently. I think it's possible to do so fairly and without prejudice. I teach film and I would not be able to teach Hitchcock responsibly without at least mentioning the controversy, as a) it's notable and b) students will hear of it and interpret silence as intellectually irresponsible (and they'd be right to do so, in my view). Gcampbel (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There's an extended discussion of the episode with Tippi Hedren in Tippi Hedren's own article. None of the director's other leading ladies reported any such behaviour. Critics have not paid enough attention to the plain nastiness of Psycho, the director's most influential film, but that's their fault and there's not much that Wikipedia, which is merely a precis of secondary sources, can do about it. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree. There is almost nothing about his relationships at all here. It seems his films were all that mattered. There is no doubt he abused poor Tippi Hedren. Rod Taylor confirmed his obsession with her. He told him not to touch her once he said cut, and had her followed. I bet if you tried to put it in some idolatrous zealot would just remove it. --Manky b (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Adding my voice to those who want to see a section on Hitchcock's representation and treatment of women. There's an extensive academic literature on Hitchcock and women. A good place to start is Tania Modleski (2016) [1988]. The Women Who Knew Too Much: Hitchcock and Feminist Theory. 3rd edition. Routledge. Also worth reading this Guardian article by Bidisha. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• The main article for this discussion is currently at the Wikipedia article for: The Girl (2012 TV film). The main published book on Hitchcock's leading ladies is form 2008 by Donald Spoto for those interested in this topic. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• @ManKnowsInfinity: The Girl (2012 TV film) is about Hitchcock and Tippi Hedren. The academic literature about Hitchcock and women needs to be summarized in this biography. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• It might be nice to see someone bring some of this material into the themes article for Hitchcock which currently does not have a section for the theme of Hitchcock's leading ladies here: Themes and plot devices in the films of Alfred Hitchcock. The main book on this is the Spoto book from 2008 which I think you have added to the article yesterday. Spoto's book was the one which was adapted into the film I linked above, and he discusses the other leading ladies in his book as well. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• @ManKnowsInfinity: this has nothing to do with "themes". It is about Hitchcock's treatment of women—in real life and his representation of them in his films (see male gaze). You've talked about wanting to take this article to FAC. It will definitely need a section on that to become FA. Frankly, I wonder whether it should even be GA without it. GAs are expected to "address the main aspects" of the topic, and this is certainly one of them. The "Approach towards actors" doesn't mention it. The "Psychology of characters" section confines itself to listing who was blonde. The elephant in the room remains unexplored. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• The theme of leading ladies in Hitchcock is the subject of Spoto's 2008 book on this subject. You appear to have started separate threads of the subject matter here and I ask that you merge the separate threads together on the peer review page currently in progress so that all the comments can be together in one place. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Citations

The article currently uses {{harvnb}} for the short refs. Does anyone mind if I switch to {{sfn}}? The advantage of the latter is that it leaves a closing period, which matches the rest of the citations, and it doesn't require <ref></ref> or ref name=. The only disadvantage (that I know of) is that writing bundled refs is fiddly, but if anyone wants to bundle, {{harvnb}} can still be used. I'm leaving this note here per WP:CITEVAR. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The main editor for the Hitchcock article for the last 5 years is Keith D and his preference appears to be for Harvard. He should be asked prior to any change over. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wood 2015

ManKnowsInfinity has added the following, or some version if it, three times [1][2][3] to the section about Tippi Hedren's allegations that Hitchcock harassed her:

Michael Wood in his 2015 biography of Hitchcock commented that the complex question of Hedren's allegations were at least in some part likely justified. In 2014, two years after the release of The Girl recounting Hedren's account, the film Grace of Monaco was released in which Grace Kelly is portrayed as showing enthusiasm for the opportunity to return to work with Hitchcock after a personal invitation from Hitchcock himself to participate in his next project. Another difficulty recounted, aside from Hedren not reporting the matter at the time it occurred, is her return to do a second film with Hitchcock after her statements about how poorly she felt the first experience had gone to then film Marnie. Wood also comments that part of Hedren's difficulty may have been related to a partial self-aggrandizement of her own acting skills when compared to other Hitchcock leading ladies such as Ingrid Bergman (3 films with Hitchcock) and Grace Kelly (also 3 films with Hitchcock), with Wood's further observation that Bergman and Kelly were two of the standout actresses distinguishing themselves above many of the other Hitchcock leading ladies.

References

The source is Wood, Michael (2015). The Man Who Knew Too Much. New Harvest. ASIN B00ZM3IJ80. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I can't find anything like this in Wood 2015, whether on pp. 71–89 or anywhere else. It isn't clear what the paragraph is saying, but ManKnowsInfinity seems to be using Wood to imply that Hedren can't be telling the truth because (a) Grace Kelly wanted to work with Hitchcock; (b) Hedren didn't report it at the time; (c) Hedren made Marnie with Hitchcock after the harassment, so it can't have been that bad; and (d) Hedren may have been jealous of Ingrid Bergman and Grace Kelly.

The source is a professor emeritus of English at Princeton. It's hard to imagine that he would make these arguments. I've asked ManKnowsInfinity to give precise page numbers with no success, and when I've removed the text, he has restored it. I'm leaving this explanation because I'm about to remove it again as original research and arguably a BLP violation, given that Hedren is a living person. It should not be restored until page numbers are offered and we can establish that Michael Wood really did write this. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The Michael Wood edit has no original research in it and is fully attributed. This matter is currently being discussed on the peer review page. Please keep comments in one place on the peer review page without creating multiple threads. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the correct place to discuss it. Please give precise page numbers so that I can find it in Wood. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Without taking a position (yet) on this particular issue, I concur that this talk page is the proper forum in which further discussion should take place. Consensus is generally established on talk pages, rather than in peer reviews, as more eyes are likely to see the discussion. It would be helpful if, for the time being, this part of the article is left as it is, until a consensus or agreement is achieved. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: The main editor for this biography page for the last five years is Keith D who is returning to his edits next week after New Year's break is over. One or two days ago, I had brought up several questions regarding what appeared to be a poorly written and posthumous Hedren section which seemed more related to Hedren than to Hitchcock. By BRD, the new Hedren edit was removed here [4] for discussion at the Peer review page here [5] where most of the editors were active following Keith's request for peer comments. Sarah then ignored the BRD as well as the initiated discussion fully, and then returned her version of the unsupported edit here [6] back into the Hitchcock article apparently applying her sys ops authority. This was apparently done over and above BRD guidelines. Are you saying that she should be allowed to bypass BRD requirements because of her sys ops authority? Are you saying that would be more helpful in some other sense? Or should it be discussed according to BRD until consensus is reached. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As I've said, I am not taking any position with regard to the various factions in dispute over this article. I am merely reiterating my belief that when a major issue is in contention, the proper way of trying to resolve it is open discusssion on the talkpage rather than within the confines of a peer review. By asking that this section of the article should remain unchanged meantime is not an endorsement of Sarah's text or her actions, merely an attempt to avoid chasing a moving target. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: As you seem to be asking for the re-post here of the discussion from the peer review page it is placed directly below for review of other editors and readers with an interest in Hitchcock for discussion and comment. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity, I'm requesting page numbers for your edit based on Wood, rather than the 71–89 page range you offered. On which page(s) in Wood 2015 can I find something that supports the following?

"Another difficulty recounted, aside from Hedren not reporting the matter at the time it occurred, is her return to do a second film with Hitchcock after her statements about how poorly she felt the first experience had gone to then film Marnie."

"Wood also comments that part of Hedren's difficulty may have been related to a partial self-aggrandizement of her own acting skills when compared to other Hitchcock leading ladies ..."

SarahSV ^(talk) 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This was offered by me on the peer review page and you said you were not interested in my providing any quotations from the MWood book. Which one is it, do you want me to type in some quotations? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't need you to type up quotations (unless you want to). I'm requesting page numbers. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You do not have the MWood book and you are not interested in someone to type in the passages of interest. Your doing keyword searches on Google books to try to "verify" edits is really not helping you here. MWood does not write his books based on one-line extracts or even one-page extracts. He is not that type of author. This is a significant point which perhaps some other editor may clarify for you for your own benefit. Using the keyword search feature on Google books is not a substitute for having the actual book in hand. The person who has the full book in hand is in a much better position to evaluate the content. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I do have the book, and thank you for explaining to me how to read. Please give page numbers where I can find material to support the two sentences I highlighted above. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hedren

Another editor has made a number of edits to the early biography sections based on what appears to make extensive use of the keyword search feature of the Google books search engine, while being without the benefit of having the actual books. The edits in that section seem reasonably done. The other unrelated edit dealing with the posthumously made Hedren allegations about Hitchcock appear less useful and misplaced for several reasons. The new weekend edit appears as a somewhat misplaced edit here and resembles a Hitchcock-via-Weinstein section which might belong elsewhere in Wikipedia but appears not to belong in the Hitchcock biography article here. The new weekend edit is posted below to see what other editors may feel about the new weekend edit based on three issues now listed.

In its current form, this new edit was added over the holiday weekend under the title of "Hedren's allegations" and it appears to be redundant, undue, and duplicating material which was already covered in the closing section of this Hitchcock biography article. This new weekend edit is placed below for discussion since it appears in this biography article without any support on either the Talk page for the article or on the peer review page. There are multiple questionable issues with the form of the new weekend edit which might benefit from discussion and assessment prior to deciding on its status in this Wikipedia biography article for Hitchcock as a new edit, or, to decide if the new weekend edit might better be placed in the Wikipedia film article for The Girl, which for the past five years has been the peer reviewed article dealing with the posthumous Hedren allegations. Since the Controversy section in The Girl film article at Wikipedia has existed for 5 years and is peer reviewed it seems a better place for this new weekend Hitchcock-via-Weinstein edit. There are three questionable issues with the new weekend edit listed here.

(1) The material in the new weekend edit is redundant and was already covered in the closing section of the Hitchcock biography article which was deleted by Sarah. There is no reason to cover it twice in this article.

(2) The material in the new weekend edit is undue. The material introduced is a posthumous claim against Hitchcock made many years after his death. The new weekend edit also contains material which is already substantially dealt with in the Controversy section of the Wikipedia film article for The Girl from 2012. The Girl is the peer reviewed film article where Wikipedia for the last five years has dealt with these posthumous Hedren allegations for half a decade. It is undue to include the new weekend edit here in the Hitchcock biography article when it may better be included as a part of the 5-years old existing article dealing with the Hedren allegations for the past half decade on Wikipedia.

(3) The closing section of the Hitchcock biography has already covered and contained this Hedren allegation material adequately as a posthumous allegation against Hitchcock made well after his death prior to its deletion by Sarah. There is no reason to reduplicate material which was already adequately covered in this Hitchcock biography and which currently has its own peer-reviewed main article on Wikipedia in the Controversy section of The Girl here on Wikipedia for the last five years.

This new weekend edit is posted here to see if other editors could provide comments or viewpoints on the best place to deal with and where to place (perhaps on the Wikipedia article for The Girl) these questionable parts of the new weekend edit introduced by another editor. The new weekend edit is included here below:

In 1973 Tippi Hedren, who played the lead in The Birds (1963) and Marnie (1964), said that she had stopped working with Hitchcock because he had become "too possessive and too demanding". Years later she told one of his biographers, Donald Spoto, that Hitchcock had harassed her, and in 2012 a BBC/HBO production, The Girl, depicted Hedren's experiences while filming The Birds. While filming the attack scenes, Hedren was placed in a caged room with live birds, so that some of the pecking at her was real. It took a week to film the scenes. Toward the end of the week, one leg of each bird was attached by string to her clothes, so that they were forced to stay close to her. She eventually collapsed after one bird cut her lower eyelid, and filming was halted on doctor's orders. Hitchcock apparently admitted to François Truffaut that he had gone too far with her.

Calling Hitchcock a misogynist, Hedren alleged in 2009 that Hitchcock had become obsessed with her. She said he constantly stared at her, whispered obscenities to her, tried to control her weight (he had potatoes delivered to her home), drove past her home at all hours, had her followed, and sent her wine and gifts accompanied by sometimes childish and emotional notes. He had a life mask made of her, had her handwriting analysed, and had a ramp built from his private office that led directly into her trailer. In February 1964, she alleged, he propositioned her sexually, and when she turned him down, he said he would ruin her. Thereafter he would not speak to her directly and referred to her only as "the girl". Hitchcock told John Russell Taylor that the reason he and Hedren had fallen out was that, when Hitchcock declined her request for time off, she had called him a "fat pig". He apparently announced at a press conference that Hedren was under an exclusive contract and that he would not lend her out to other studios, which, in Hedren's view, effectively ended her career.

Everyone on set had reportedly been aware of the tension. Rod Taylor and Diane Baker, who appeared in The Birds, said that Hitchcock had clearly wanted to isolate Hedren from the rest of the crew. When filming Marnie, Hitchcock told Robert Burks, the cinematographer, that the camera had to be placed as close as possible to Hedren while he filmed her face, and according to the screenwriter Evan Hunter, Hitchcock insisted that on filming Hedren's face during the rape scene; Spoto writes that the scene caused everyone on set "considerable discomfort". Eva Marie Saint, Doris Day and Kim Novak, who worked with Hitchcock, told the Daily Telegraph in 2012 that they did not share Hedren's opinion of him; Saint, who starred in North by Northwest (1959), said her experience with him had been "one of utter respect, warmth, friendliness and humour".

References

Possibly other editors have an opinion on these questions raised for the new weekend edit which has been deleted from the article and placed above for purposes of review and comment by other readers and editors of this peer review to determine consensus. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Commenting on the above: I'm not a Hitchcock expert, and I don't see myself as much of a contibuting editor to this biography, rather as a reviewer/adviser on matters within my competence, e.g. prose, balance, referncing and MoS compliance. To prepare myself, I read Hitchcock's ODNB entry (available via a UK library card). It's a well-written and informative article, and could be a useful additional source.

Re Hedren: ManKnowsInfinity (MKI) calls the current section dealing with this issue "redundant" and "undue". While I have my own reservations about the text added by Sarah, I don't see how "redundant" applies; it's more a case of whether this version serves better than MKI's preferred shorter text. However, over and above the precise wording, my chief concern is the lack of context in which this issue is presented. There is an earlier section in the article, "Characters and representation of women", which provides many examples of how women tend to be depicted in Hitchcock's films, but the question of the director's misogyny is not directly addressed, so that Hedren's accusations of sexual harassment appear somewhat out of the blue. I think it is necessary in the earlier section to confront Hitchcock's misogyny, as the quoted Bidisha article does (and, more circuitously, the ODNB article which euphemistically refers to "his complex attitude to women"). In that context, Hedren's claims can be better assessed.

This article contains a possibly useful quote: "Hitchcock’s attitude towards women is truly misogynistic because on one hand, he despised them for being who they are, and on the other hand, he despised even more when women were willing to change for men".

I don't think the "Allegations" section needs so many examples (more than a dozen) of Hitchcock's supposed importunings, and there is no justification for a second image of Hedren. In summary, therefore, I'd recommend keeping the current version in an edited-down form, within the context of a direct acknowledgement of the Hitchcock's misogyny as attested by various sources. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Brian, I'll trim it, but as I said above, this section will become a subsection of a "Representations of women" section, so it will change significantly as part of that. The reason I added lots of examples is that ManKnowsInfinity was doubting it; as always, these interactions affect the writing. I can't see a problem with the double image of Hedren. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Trimmed. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks for your comments. The redundant part of the edit is found in this section edit at the end of the article which was deleted by Sarah here [7]. After you read it you can decide more about the redundancy question, and also you can verify that the Hedren matter has already been dealt with on the Wikipedia biography article for Tippi Hedren over the last 5 years, which has a substantial section dedicated to it, as well as the Wikipedia film article for The Girl which already has had a Controversy section dedicated to the Hedren matter fully developed for over 5 years. That's a lot of redundancy on Wikipedia for a claim made by Hedren 27 years after the death of Hitchcock, and given that it took 27 years for her to make the isolated claim about Hitchcock it seems best placed on those other Wikipedia articles. Let me know what you think. Previously, my attempt to start BRD for Sarah's version of the Hedren edit was removed by Sarah here [8] for discussion at the Peer review page here [9] where most of the editors were then active following Keith's request for peer comments. Sarah then ignored the BRD as well as the initiated discussion fully, and then returned her version of her unsupported edit here [10] back into the Hitchcock article apparently applying her sys ops authority. I am presenting these links since Sarah is now stating in the new section below that she plans to drop editing of this Hitchcock biography without bringing it to FA nomination when the article looks in worse condition now than when Keith D presented it for peer review two weeks ago.

Apparently her main purpose was to bring in her version of the Hedren material, make a large number of minor and almost automatic edits, and then to abandon the page in what she is admitting as being a half completed version of the article. Please comment on both of these issues in a politic way since Sarah abandoning the article in such a half completed form leaves things in the lurch. Does the 27 year after-the-event claim by Hedren belong on the Hitchcock page or the Hedren page? What can be done about Sarah seeming to abandon the page in what appears to be a half completed version with many cite tags added by other editors mostly because of problems with her many new edits? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer not to respond to these increasingly disturbing posts. But for the record, I am the one adding the cite tags, as I've said elsewhere. I've removed or replaced a lot of the poor sources, fixed ill-formed citations, added sources where there were none, and tagged some of the rest. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"Does the 27 year after-the-event claim by Hedren belong on the Hitchcock page or the Hedren page?" It's not an either/or situation; the matter is relevant to both articles and should be appropriately dealt with in each – in the case of the Hitchcock article I believe it should be discussed in the section that deals with his relations with women. I'm not endorsing the present version, which may well need further pruning and reorganisation, but I'd prefer to wait until Sarah has finished her say before I start chipping in with more suggestions, otherwise I'll be chasing a moving target. As to Sarah "abandoning" the page or "leaving things in the lurch": there is no obligation on any editor to continue work on a page when they have no wish to say more – that applies to all Wikipedia editing. Nor should you impugn Sarah's motives ("Apparently her main purpose was..."), which is contrary to WP:AGF

The article is currently in a state of work-in-progress, which might make it look worse in some respects than it did earlier; that's normally the case with substantial reconstructions. You could add an {{underconstruction}} banner to the top of the page, to warn readers that the article is not yet in its settled form. Frankly, I'm not really interested at this stage in following up on claims of BRD policy being ignored, etc. I'd like to help improve the article, working with its main editors, but I'm not going to act as a referee between disputing factions. There's plenty of work to be done if the article is to reach FA standard, which I trust is still the long term aim. Brianboulton (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton and Keith D: The long term goal still needs to be the improvement of the article and, as Keith stated at the peer review he initiated, to improve the Hitchcock biography to FA status. The current condition of the article is quite poor after the New Year's edits by Sarah and if she is leaving the editing of this page now, as she states in the section below, then the question is to return the article to its best neutral point of development to allow the previous improvement process to continue. Over the New Year's weekend several other editors, and not myself since I was away for New Year's, but other editors have even called Sarah's version ugly, literally ugly, as was done here by another editor: [11]. Still other editors have effectively tag bombed the entire article and made it look like a war zone after Sarah's edits. The article is significantly worse than the version submitted for peer review by Keith a few weeks ago. In order to assume good faith with Brian's suggestion, I offer to add his version of the Hedren material into the article and to delete both Sarah's version and my own version of the Hedren edit, in order to show good faith with Brian and to accept his version and recommendation. Fortunately, the article has several neutral control versions of the article following the recent GA nominations which allow the article to be rolled back to a much better version of the article for enhancement since Sarah has stated her intention to leave the editing here on Hitchcock. There is the version of the recent promotion to the GA version of this article by DrownSoda here [12] as one suggestion. Another suggestion is to use the version which Eric edited which has a much better version of the lead section as edited by Eric here: [13]. A third improved version of the article which can allow for me to add Brian's suggestion and allow the improvement process to continue can be found here: [14]. I am prepared to continue to show good faith with Brian and am offering to add Brian's version of the Hedren edit myself if either one of you could rollback the article to any one of the three previous enhanced versions I just presented, your choice, since Sarah has left the editing of the article in her statement below, and the current article is in a tangled condition with all the defects specified by other editors which I have summarized above. You pick the best rollback version of the 3 choices, and I will pick up on the further enhancement of the article from whichever start point of these 3 options you select. I am doing this in good faith, so its your choice. By the way, Brian, it was Sarah who stated that her purpose here was to bring in her feminist version of the Hitchcock material here [15], and that was not my ascription to her as much as her stating that it was her purpose to incorporated feminist themes into the Hitchcock article. I look forward to your comments and those of any other editors watching this Talk page. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a "Brian's version" – I've never edited this article, merely offered an opinion as to how the issue of Hitchcock's misogyny/relations with women might best be handled. I originally came to the article in response to a request on the FAC talkpage for some mentoring, and offered to help. I did not anticipate this level of conflict, and frankly I don't have the energy or the time to deal with it. You must do as you think best, but I'm pulling out and won't be responding here again. Under any circumstances. Sorry, but life is too short. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, and I generally agree with you that "life is too short." My comment about your edit version suggestion was your suggestion that the Hedren section added by Sarah should be moved/adapted to other sections of the article, which I agree with. My other point is that the article should be rolled back to one of the peer review versions of the article from last month still holds. If Sarah is dropping out of her effort to convert the Hitchcock article into her view of a feminism-friendly version of the Hitchcock biography without nominating her version for FA assessment, then the article should still be rolled-back to one of the recent peer reviewed versions of the article from last month. Sarah has stated here [16] that she wishes to see a feminism-friendly version of the article completed with the assumption that she can bring it to FA-assessment. This is fine if she can bring it FA, but if she is leaving the editing unfinished with multiple unattended tag bombings from other editors, then the Hitchcock biography should be returned to the previous peer-reviewed version of the article as promoted just last month as representing a peer-reviewed version of the Hitchcock biography. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear what a mess, especially with lots of disjointed discussion of the article. I would think that a roll-back is not really feasible with all of the edits made by others to the article since that time. My guess is that that if it is just some of Sarah edits that are problematic and cause the article to be slanted to a particular point of view then these would have to be removed from the article manually. Keith D (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. Part of the issue is that Sarah has been virtually the single source on all of these recent edits and no-one really knows what the end goal of her feminist friendly version of the Hitchcock biography would be or why she is doing it. She has frozen me out of the editing one week ago by refusing to acknowledge BRD for other editors such as myself apparently through appplying her sys ops authority to over-ride normal BRD. Since the recent edits are virtually entirely her own, then its fine if she is planning to bring this article to FA assessment on her own so long as she does not drop out of the editing as she stated was her plan to do in the section below. If, however, she does wish to drop out of further editing here without fixing the multiple tag bombing (by other editors) caused during her edits, then the roll-back to the previous peer-reviewed version from just last month would still be the best way to return the Hitchcock biography to something which other editors can improve towards FA-nomination. What do other editors think would be the best roll-back position if Sarah drops out of the edit process again without completing her original plan to convert the Hitchcock biography into a feminist friendly version of the Hitchcock biography as she originally stated was her intention to do here: [17]. Which version would be best for Wikipedia readers? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I may revise my position after further looking at the changes made and realising that most of the other edits are actually by Sarah - I had not connected the user-id with the name. The change in reference style also is of concern as this appears to have changed and lost information on the publication details etc. Keith D (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Canon

The lead says that his four canonical films are Rear Window (1954), Vertigo (1958), North by Northwest (1959), and Psycho (1960). The article is also organized along those lines; one heading is "Canonical Hitchcock films: 1954–1960". I'm surprised to see The Birds excluded from the list. What are the sources for only these four being canonical? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please obtain a copy of one of the Hitchcock books which will make it better for your editing here than your relying only on keyword searches on Google books. There is really no substitute for having the central 800-page PM biography in your hands if you are planning serious edits, and not to rely only upon limited views on Google books. The question of Hitchcock's canonical films is well discussed in the literature. Vertigo, for example, as you have read in this Hitchcock article, is currently at the top of the 2012 BFI list of best films. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Noting here what I've done so far. I'm tightening the writing and removing repetition as I go along. The article was 10,057 words readable prose size on 20 December, and is now 9,745 words, although it contains more information. I think we should aim to keep it under 10,000.

I've expanded the childhood and The Birds subsections, and created education and Tippi Hedren subsections; the plan is that Hedren will eventually be moved into a section about the representation of women. I've also fixed a lot of citations; many had missing authors, titles, etc, and some were in the wrong place. There were several non-RS (and still are) and several inappropriate RS (e.g. citing a book review instead of the book itself, or citing a tertiary source instead of the original source).

I've copy-edited the lead and added a quotation to it. I've added a few images. I've also removed the Biography section heading at the top, because it meant we had a lot of sub-subsections. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hitchcock's knighthood

Hitchcock's KBE was an honorary knighthood, as he was a US citizen when it was awarded. Honorary KBEs do not use the prenominal "Sir", although they may use the postnominal letters. A similar case is that of Bob Hope – born British, naturalised American, awarded KBE in 1997, but never referred to as "Sir Bob" ( Bob Geldof (Irish) is another case). This article explains the position. So Hitchcock should not be introduced to the article as "Sir Alfred". Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a post in Archive 1 that says "Acquisition of U.S. citizenship on or after 1 January 1949 [see British Nationality Act 1948] does not cause loss of British nationality. Hitchcock naturalised in 1956, hence he remained British." We should look for RS that discuss it. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This says: "only those British nationals, including dual nationals, awarded British knighthoods may use the title 'Sir' in a formal context in the United Kingdom." It doesn't say from which year. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't honorary. Having acquired dual does not preclude you from being a Sir. Daniel Day-Lewis is a more recent example. This is Hitchcock's obituary from Variety magazine, Among the honors that marked his career, he cherished the knighthood bestowed last Jan. 1 by Queen Elizabeth. Lew Wasserman, board chairman and chief executive officer of MCA Inc. and previously Hitchcock’s longtime agent, yesterday said: “I am deeply saddened by the death of my close friend and colleague, Sir Alfred Hitchcock". Chris M77 (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hitchcock's ODNB entry refers to his "honorary" knighthood. Did he acquire dual nationality when he naturalised as an American? We need rather more than a quotation printed in the Variety obituary to resolve this issue, we need an authoritative statement of the legal position. Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Won't get more authoritative than the British government. Official public record. Besides, I don't think a non-departmental body of the British government, English Heritage, would have a plaque with Sir Alfred Hitchcock if it wasn't the case. Chris M77 (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, that looks good – enough, anyway, to preserve the status quo. Unless/until something contrary turns up, I'm happy to leave the issue as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Review

I'm leaving this review in case it's helpful to anyone developing the article. When I first saw the peer review, I assumed that Keith and ManKnewInfinity had rewritten the article and were about to take it to FAC. In fact, almost all MKI's edits have been minor (none marked), and Keith has focused on formatting citations and similar issues, which has made the article look a lot better but it leaves the text to be dealt with. It seems that the article was written by multiple editors going back at least ten years, with all the problems that entails, which I'm trying to keep track of at Talk:Alfred Hitchcock/to do. Getting it ready for FAC would be a major project. In summary:

• Some of the text is unsourced, or sources are offered but don't support the text or support only part of it. In several cases sources allude only in passing to the issue. Non-RS websites have been added after the fact to support unsourced text; newspaper book reviews have been used instead of the books themselves; and tertiary sources have been used that repeat (and sometimes slightly change) the work of earlier authors. Full citation details are missing, including page numbers. I've fixed some of these problems, removed some, and started tagging the rest.
• There is very little analysis, and most of the article is about the films. Very little about his health, marriage, estate, sense of humour, technique, etc.
• The previous "Childhood and education" section as I found it was missing a lot of information. I've expanded it so that there are now three subsections covering "Early life: 1899–1919".
• The "Storyboards and production" section was roughly the same on 30 December 2008 as on 1 January 2018. It is oddly sourced. Summarizing Krohn's Hitchcock at Work, it cites Krohn only once (pp. 1–7), then cites others. The "Character" section stems from 2006. The "Writing" section (now incorporated into storyboards) is also old; it consisted of nothing but quotations. It should be expanded.
• The "Themes and motifs" section needs to be expanded; it currently says almost nothing. Most of it, including a blockquote, isn't about themes and motifs.
• The "Characters and representation of women" section lists characters with blonde hair or mother issues, but that's about it. There is no mention of the scholarly literature.
• The "Approach toward actors" section as I found it said nothing about Tippi Hedren's sexual-harassment allegations. Neither that nor the paragraph on The Birds said anything about her treatment during the filming of the attack scenes (when live birds were attached to her clothes). The paragraph on Marnie did mention her allegations but argued against them, and it didn't mention the rape scene. I've changed that so that the current "Relationship with actors" section contains a subsection about Hedren's allegations. I've created a separate section on The Birds and Marnie that briefly describes what happened to her while filming the former, and very briefly mentions the rape scene in the latter. Once the "Representation of women" section is written (I hope by someone other than me), a decision can be made about whether to move the Hedren/The Birds material into it. That will depend on how the sources approach it; his real-life treatment of women and his approach to fictional female characters are not the same issue, although clearly they spring from the same well.
• The writing is laboured in places. I've tried to reduce the number of words while increasing the amount of information. We should aim to keep it under 10,000.

I hope this is helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• IMO The article is looking great so far. Good work...Modernist (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Modernist, thank you. I'm going to post an updated review soon with more information about what I've done and what remains to be done, as things are becoming clearer. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Could Modern's comment be clarified here concerning Sarah's conversion of the article into her own preference for a feminist-friendly version of the Hitchcock biography. The article is currently in poor condition according to multiple comments by other editors who have called her edits on Hitchcock ugly, literally ugly, as I have documented and linked these comments above and elsewhere: see for example here [18]. After Sarah's edits, her version of the article has been tag bombed to the extent of resembling a war zone. Third, her rewritten version of the lead section is significantly worse than the version of the lead section which Keith D had submitted for peer review last month. Are you stating that you prefer Sarah's partially converted version of the biography as being in some way better than the version which Keith D recently posted for peer review comments just last month? Also, Sarah has stated above her intention to drop out of the editing of this partially converted biography in its current poor condition which you appear to be endorsing? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? I do write in English. I can't help it if you simply do not want to understand. Let me repeat myself IMO the article looks great so far...Modernist (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, that's fine. In English, my question was: Are you stating that you prefer Sarah's partially converted version of the biography as being in some way better than the version which Keith D recently posted for peer review comments just last month? I ask this in seriousness since other editors have called her edits on Hitchcock ugly, literally ugly, as I have documented and linked these comments above and elsewhere: see for example here [19]. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments on Hedren material

Sarah is now stating in this new section above that she plans to drop the editing of this Hitchcock biography without bringing it to FA nomination when the article looks in worse condition now than when Keith D presented it for peer review two weeks ago. Apparently her main purpose was to bring in her version of the Hedren material, make a large number of minor and almost automatic edits, and then to abandon the Hitchcock article in what she is admitting as being a half completed version of the article. Could other editors comment on this issue in a politic way since Sarah abandoning the article in such a half completed form leaves things in the lurch. Does the 27 year after-the-event claim by Hedren belong on the Hitchcock page or the Hedren page? What can be done about Sarah seeming to abandon the page in what appears to be a half completed version with many cite tags added by other editors throughout because of problems with her new edits? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Keith

Keith, I'm replying here to your note on my talk to keep things together. First, I don't know what you mean by a change in reference style, so please clarify. Second, my edits have significantly improved the article. It was in a real mess. Unsourced, poorly sourced, sources present but not supporting the text, citations half written (missing author, date, page number, etc). Lots of information missing. It's still not good (it would take months to fix it), but it's definitely a lot better.

What I'm doing is trying to create a scaffolding or road map for future development. I'm making sure the basics are there, and I'm adding invisible notes about what to add. I've added a lot of references, fixed a lot of citations, and added citation tags for things I can't find or where pages are missing. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Further supplements to my previous comments about Sarah over-riding BRD using her sys ops authority and freezing me out of editing this Hitchcock biography. The article is currently in poor condition according to multiple comments by other editors who have called her edits on Hitchcock ugly, literally ugly, as I have documented and linked these comments above and elsewhere: see for example here [20]. After Sarah's edits, her version of the article has been tag bombed to the extent of resembling a war zone. Third, her rewritten version of the lead section is significantly worse than the version of the lead section which you had submitted for peer review last month. On top of everything, she has now crowned her edits by placing a fat man joke at the very top of her lead section in the very first paragraph or her lead which is not only inappropriate, but to many it is also offensive to include fat man jokes in a biography about Hitchcock.

All of my references have been fully factual and Sarah appears not to have read MWood, or she simply does not understand him since she is leaving out his strongest statements from the current version of the Hitchcock article. She has several times shown a over-reliance on keyword searches on Google books as a substitute over and against editors who have actually read these books. I have tried several times to convince her that single word searches on Google books is no substitute for actually reading the books, but she appears to fully ignore me on this issue and others. Single word searches on Google books is no substitute for actually reading the books.

I need to also add that when I tried to fix the errors in many of her edits on the article here, she then began a deep mining of my general edit history and reverting my edits on other pages not related to Hitchcock, as she did on the Blade Runner 2049 article here [21], possibly to intimidate or coerce my compliance in fear of further reprisals from her. In the case of Blade Runner 2049, I was then forced to use up my limited contribution time to start up Talk page discussion there before she finally relented. The current version of the Hitchcock article is quite poor according to many other editors, and it has a poor lead section as well. It makes good sense to roll-back the article to a previous version of the Hitchcock biography since we have a fine peer-reviewed version of the article from just last month. I will look forward to comments from other editors as to the best version of the roll-back to rely on if the current feminist-friendly conversion of the Hitchcock article does not improve. This issue is based on the high amount of criticism made by other editors concerning Sarah's single handed attempt to convert the article into her own preferred feminist friendly format. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)