Talk:¡Que viva México! (unfinished film)

Beginning

The beginning of this article is based on the contributions to Sergei Eisenstein, as of 5 May 2008. The text was primarily added by an anonymous ip [1]

• (cur) (last) 21:00, 4 July 2005 12.73.194.98 (Talk | block) (tuckpointing) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 16:46, 28 June 2005 138.40.1.12 (Talk | block) (→Literature) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 02:22, 22 June 2005 12.73.194.49 (Talk | block) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 00:02, 5 June 2005 12.73.201.107 (Talk | block) (→Literature) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 01:09, 1 June 2005 12.73.194.155 (Talk | block) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 02:14, 18 May 2005 12.73.194.107 (Talk | block) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 01:52, 17 May 2005 12.73.198.79 (Talk | block) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 23:31, 16 May 2005 12.73.198.79 (Talk | block) (→Filmography) (undo)

The timestamps above have been reproduced here for reference. dvdrw 01:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have since deleted this content but it can be read here [2] as well if someone wants to adapt it later. dvdrw 02:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

<gallery mode=slideshow> Image:QVMCarousel2.jpg|A carousel shown revolving, the image is decorated with Day of the Dead skulls arranged in near the camera in the foreground Image:QVMCarving.jpg|A stationary image of a pre-Columbian stone carving, spliced between other footage Image:QVMFWheel.jpg|A ferris wheel shown revolving, the image is decorated with Day of the Dead skulls arranged in near the camera in the foreground Image:QVMProcession.jpg|A funeral procession passes through the maguey Image:QVMFilming.jpg|Eisenstein behind the camera, at a pre-Columbian pyramid </gallery>

Plagiarism?

Vast swathes of the article seem to be taken directly from http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=150906220. What's with that? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm beginning to think that it is this page that has been plagiarized by that other one, rather than vice versa. But I'm not sure. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

These edits from May/June/July 2005[3] show when most of the text of this article was added. I've been trying to source it over the last two months or so and hadn't seen the myspace page that you found, which isn't dated to compare. Here is some evidence that it was probably copied from us, from the myspace page, §DEPARTURE FROM MEXICO, 3rd ¶, "Finally, in mid-1932, the Sinclairs were able to secure the services of [[Sol Lesser], who had just opened his own distribution office in New York, Principal Distributing Corp.." Notice "[[Sol Lesser]," has traces of wikilink markup "[[]" around it.dvdrw 20:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced now that whoever made those myspace director pages is copying blatantly from Wikipedia and other online sources. Compare F. W. Murnau with this [4]. In other instances, they are copying Wikipedia pages and partially acknowledging that fact in their "blog."(sorry blacklisted link not included) Furthermore, most of their articles are lifted from Wikipedia, Senses of Cinema, and IMDB, even though in they acknowledge that in most cases. Their Eisenstein article is an exception, and I believe it is directly cut and pasted from a version of this article that lasted until March this year.[5]dvdrw 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

"It shared with Viva Villa! the word "viva" in the title and a hacienda used as a filming location. Eisenstein took notice of these similarities and enjoyed this later film."(viva means in spanish alive) - This has got to be one of the most banal points I've ever read on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.192.193 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Agreed! We're working on this article, so look for improvements ahead... or jump in yourself! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation format

I'm not that adept at citation templates, but I agree they are improvements. I have a question about one that makes the link between notes and references a little confusing for me. Previously one citation was...

• Sergei Eisenstein, and Ernest Lindgren, Que Viva Mexico! Ayer Publishing, 1951 ISBN:0405039166

...and ref'd in the text as "Eisenstein & Lindgren." This was then changed to...

• Eisenstein, Sergei Eisenstein; Lindgren, Ernest (1951), Que Viva Mexico!, ??: Ayer Publishing, ISBN 0405039166.

...and then...

• Eisenstein, Sergei (1972), Que Viva Mexico!, New York: Arno, ISBN 978-0405039164.

The latest change means that the refs in the article have to be updated to something like "Eisenstein 1972," since Lindgren isn't mentioned. Before I update them(in both articles), I want to clarify that this is the best way to cite this, and the best edition to cite. Shouldn't it mention Lindgren, who wrote the introduction? Should we use the earlier date of publication? I'm leaning towards the first variant that is templated, but I know little about how to template references, I should take some time to study up on this. But need to clarify this because as is the notes mention Lindgren and he isn't in the bibliography with the current citation style. By the way, templates are an improvement and I'm going to copy them over(if you don't mind), and update the citations with templates in the Eisenstein article. Thanks for your help, dvdrw 01:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's right now. Lindgren isn't a co-author. (Check out the worldcat record.) He only wrote the intro. The 1972 book is simply a reprint of the earlier edition, and so is probably identical. It seems, however, that the person who added the information was using the reprint, so strictly it's better to indicate that. In proper MLA format, you couldd add [1951] (like that, in square brackets) to indicate the original publication date; I think you can do this with the citation templates, too, but I don't see it as being a big deal.

Full MLA format would be something like this:

• Eisenstein, Sergei. Que Viva Mexico!. Intro by Ernest Lindgren. New York: Arno, 1972 [1951].

Meanwhile, FWIW, I've just checked a bunch of books out of the library, and will be mining them for info. I have a few ideas about structure, too, as I've started to indicate. --02:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

By all means, write and restructure. I'll follow your lead with the citation templates. I'm eager to read what you add! Regards, dvdrw 02:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

challenge

A propos of nothing in particular... This article is going to be a challenge, because this is such a complex film, or rather a film project with such a complex history. But it should be fun. It might be an opportunity to show what can be done with a film article, though again it'll be an atypical one. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Done for now and where next

I'm done for today. This is pretty slow-going, but I'm trying to ensure that we have good sources from the very start.

Here are a couple of thoughts on where to go from now and the article's overall structure:

• I hope to expand a little further the "Eisenstein and Mexico" section
• I suggested following that with a section on "Eisenstein and Hollywood," as the trip to Mexico takes in Hollywood first, and this is an important topic. Some of what's currently in "Context" can go here.
• The legal niceties that are also currently in "Context" should also be given their own section.
• The "Plot summary needs to be expanded, and it should be made clear that we're (mainly) referring to the Alexandrov reconstruction. Perhaps more to the point, we need to differentiate between 1) Eisenstein's own vision; 2) Alexandrov's reconstruction; as well as 3) giving an account of other reconstructions, particularly perhaps Thunder Over Mexico. NB, to my knowledge, only the Alexandrov version is available on DVD, so descriptions of the other versions will have to come from secondary sources.
• The "Style" section obviously needs expansion
• Something needs to be done with the "Afterwards" section, which should probably be split up and reorganized.

But other suggestions and thoughts are most welcome. This is going to take a while, especially if I manage to keep to my weekends-only editing commitment; but as I'm currently at RfA I'm probably going to be on WP off and on this week anyhow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Hello, I have been considering this article for some time and have a proposal to make. Basically, I would like to remove three sections comprising quite a bit of text which are redundant to the text at the Sergei Eisenstein. When starting this article, I copied what are currently the "context," "production," and "afterwards" sections here from the Eisenstein article and started an introduction, thinking the text belonged here more and with the intentions of rewriting the sections there that discussed this film in summary style. I reduced them somewhat but had grown attached to the text that I had added footnotes to after quite a bit of reading, and had kept most of it in both places, which I am concerned now is redundant. After the section above even though it was clear to me that the myspace pages were copies of the wikipedia pages, I felt guilty that I had copied the sections here to move them, even though my intentions were to condense and rewrite them there. This was following some comments on the talkpage that there was too much attention to Que Viva Mexico in that article, which I agreed there was with respect to his other films. Now, some time has passed and I'm not working on Eisenstein but I want to remove the text from here that is redundant, as it does seem to be suited to that article though it does discuss this film at length. Somehow I am reluctant to use summary style and I feel guilty for content forking this text. Any thoughts or objections before I delete those sections from this article? If this is going to happen, it can make more room for whoever works on this article later. Regards, dvdrw 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)