Jump to content

Talk:Gremlins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleGremlins is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 1, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 4, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
June 22, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Furby

[edit]

The article claims that there's no connection between Furbies and Mogwais. However, the very first time I saw Furbies in a TV commercial, they were referred to as Mogwai. (I live in Switzerland if that matters). After that they were never called that again and were just referred to as Furbies. --Mithcoriel (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Task forces

[edit]

Does anyone have an idea why this film is listed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays/Christmas task force? The film takes place during the Christmas season, but that is not even secondary to the plot of the actual movie. The movie itself is not what most would consider "related to Christmas" based on the other articles listed in . Same argument goes for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity / Christmas. If you have any info/explanation please share. Thanks. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

[edit]

Sometimes it seems people are too quick to tag articles that aren't severely hurting. This article was tagged as resembling a fan site, but why? Because it talks about Gremlins? That's what it's supposed to be about. Accusations from critics that the film is poorly paced, that it's "icky and gross", and even that it's racist, is not fan site material. It was also tagged as being primarily in-universe. With respect, it seems the person who tagged the article didn't notice it had long production and reception sections. The real problem is that the plot section is too long, and the tagging has been changed accordingly. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenbaum and racism

[edit]

Can someone please find a weblink for the Rosenbaum article used as a source in the "charges of racism" section? I have read Rosenbaum's reviews of both Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Gremlins on his website, and I can find no justification in either one for the statements made here. In the latter review, he says that the gremlins can be interpreted in many different ways, including as African Americans. Perhaps he says something more or different in the Film Quarterly essay which is used as a source here. If so, I would like to see it, and we should offer actual quotes from said review. As it stands now, I do not see how that cite supports the charge. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 03:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the article cites him as saying is that the gremlins sometimes are represented as blacks. If you want to reword it to make it clearer go ahead. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being disingenuous here, Ribbet32. As seen in this diff, here's the statement which had the Rosenbaum citation attached at the time you made the above post: "Since its release, some people have criticized Gremlins as being culturally insensitive. Some observers have commented that the film presents gremlins as African Americans, and in an unflattering manner." Note also that this statement lead a subsection titled "Allegations of racism". The current version of the article is scarcely more shy about asserting that Rosenbaum accused the film of racism: "Since its release, the film has been criticized as being culturally insensitive. Jonathan Rosenbaum argued that the film compares gremlins to African Americans."
Here, for comparison, is the only part of Rosenbaum's review of Gremlins which makes even a glancing allusion to African Americans: "What’s confusing yet ultimately illuminating is the way his gremlins function as a free-floating metaphor, suggesting at separate junctures everything from teenagers to blacks to various Freudian suppressions." As RepublicanJacobite said, Rosenbaum may have said something different in the Film Quarterly essay, but I don't have access to it, the one-page preview of it doesn't even mention Gremlins, and it is a little hard to believe that the same critic who treated the African American connection as such an innocuous element in his review would later argue that the film is a racist allegory.
Even supposing Rosenbaum made this argument, the entire "Controversies" subsection seems an obvious case of WP:UNDUE, as noted by the tag. There are only two sources cited, both of them WP:PRIMARY. An off-topic comment in a review of an unrelated film and a critical mention in a book with a specific and explicit focus on depictions of blacks in cinema hardly seem like sufficient basis for the claim that "Since its release, the film has been criticized as being culturally insensitive." I'm going to WP:BOLDly delete the subsection as undue. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin IIIa, you've just responded to a comment that's over ten years old to accuse an editor of acting in bad faith. I agree with your edit though and the section was probably long overdue for removal. WPscatter t/c 18:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I accuse anyone of acting in bad faith? Martin IIIa (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you said 'I think you're being disingenuous here'. From dictionary.com for disingenuous 'lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere'. DonQuixote (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's an entirely different thing from acting in bad faith. I mean, that's not even close. Martin IIIa (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A word of advice, a lot of people will interpret 'disingenous' as 'bad faith', particularly since a well-known synonym is 'insincere'. Please be careful with your words. DonQuixote (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That advice makes no sense. When I use a word correctly and someone assumes that the word means something completely different from what it actually does, they're the one with egg on their face, not me. Martin IIIa (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, 'lacking in sincerity' means acting in bad faith. From dictionary.com for sincerity: freedom from deceit, hypocrisy, or duplicity. In other words, disingenuous = deceitful, amongst others. DonQuixote (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...You just think everything means acting in bad faith, don't you? I'm not going to waste any more time with you here. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gremlins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 02:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gremlins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 06:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gremlins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 01:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New modern gargoyles

[edit]

https://5respublika.com/fr/destination/chapelle-de-bethleem.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hfhdufjdickfkksktjrjslf jfjkfkv 87.115.154.99 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gremlins&oldid=1207443803"