Talk:McLintock!

I know what I wrote may have POV concerns, but the treatment of the main female characters in this movie spoils whatever good qualities it has. One of the characters essentialy gave permission to Wayne's character to commit domestic violence against his wife in saying that his father taught him that if talking to women didn't work then it was time to raise his hand. And regardless of people out there who think that domestic violence is perfectly acceptable, I think the film does need to be called on that.
JesseG 02:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

While I completely agree that the film's treatment of women is objectionable from a modern perspective, one must respectfully observe several things about the production. First, it was produced at a time when violence to women was only beginning to be seen as unacceptable. Second, it was set during a time period when violence to women was very much acceptable (1900's or 1910's I believe), so in that context the film is historically accurate. Third, all of the "violence" portrayed was light-hearted; I don't recall the film outright promoting domestic violence. Volatile 00:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever our personal beliefs about wife-spanking, the "Controversy" section of this article is unacceptably POV. E.g. "This film would appear to some people to be..." To SOME people? Which people? Obviously, to the person who wrote that section of the article! If a well known domestic violence prevention organization has made statements regarding this film, that should be included. But "The film has the dubious distinction of having the best known spanking scene in the history of cinema." is ridiculous! Among other things, "The Quiet Man" (also starring Wayne and O'Hara) has a scene where he spanks her, and that movie won two Oscars. I'd say it's probably better known than McLintock, but that's just my POV. 24.23.141.156 02:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, there isn't a spanking scene in The Quiet Man, although there is a scene where he manhandles a bit and one character suggests using a stick on her. PatGallacher 08:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. You're right, he just kinda drags her around. But that doesn't make "The film has the dubious distinction of having the best known spanking scene in the history of cinema." appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It's total opinion, as is most of that section.

From Wikipedia:Cite_sources#When_you_add_content: "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, 'Some people say…' Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research."

(Also, a case could be made for Secretary "having the best known spanking scene in the history of cinema." But that would also just be opinion. I'm not special enough to have my opinions in Wikipedia articles.)

I am going to go ahead and remove that section again, as you said nothing regarding the actual reason I removed it in the first place. The original author of that section even admits above that it may have POV concerns. He put it in because he "think(s) the film does need to be called on that." He's entitled to his opinion. 24.23.141.156 06:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The spanking scenes (there are two spanking scenes) should be mentioned. Of course that the "best known spanking scene" assertion shuld be removed (it is an unsourced affirmation), but to note that the film includes such objectionable (to our current standards) scenes is not "original research" at all.

BTW, I love this film, and I will add a transcription of the witty pro-capitalistic lines uttered by McLintock. We should remember that this film was made in the JFK years, when big business was almost a dirty word.Randroide 11:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The controversy section of this page is ludicrously POV, and I am removing it. More than being simply POV, however, is that it is almost entirely original research, the (flawed) attempt of a fan to mask the inequalities the film promotes. I am myself a fan of McClintock, but it is pretty apparent that its treatment of women is not "meaningless", nor is the claim that it is "progressive" in its treatment of Native Americans unproblematic. The film clearly presents itself as progressive on this point, but despite that its depiction of Native Americans is as either simplistic warriors (albeit noble and honorable ones) or as drunkards. At any rate, these aspects of the film are ultimately inessential to the problem at hand, which is that the the controversy section is POV and OR. --MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.250.225 (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal Suits?

I'm a fan of this film, and I am curious. What were the nature of the Legal Suits that prevented this film's copyright from being Renewed?

I would also like to know more about this! --Jason Palpatine (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Domestic violence"? Come now!

I don't say how anyone but the most hypersensitive feminist can say that this movie promotes "domestic violence." It contains two scenes where women get spanked with a tiny coal shovel. Have any of you ever seen movies where W.C. Fields played the part of a henpecked husband? Women often threw things at him and hit him in the head. Do these movies promote domestic violence? It's called slapstick, folks. Lighten up!97.73.64.172 (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)