Talk:George Bailey (It's a Wonderful Life)

Details

This page needs to have more explanation. It is woefully inadequate. What's the bank he works for, for instance.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Movie's True Hero

Article included the following text:

The character was listed ninth on the American Film Institute's 2003 list of the 50 greatest screen heroes; although there are points of view that the movie's true hero is either Mary Hatch or Mr. Potter.

References

I removed the boldface text for multiple reasons:

• This is the article about the character George Bailey, not about the film in general. If other characters are better seen as the heroes of the film, it belongs in the general It's a Wonderful Life article or in the other characters' articles.
• It is quite clear that the filmmaker's intended hero was George Bailey. In fact, several of the cited articles generally acknowledge that, and attack Capra for the moral of the story.
• The articles are not engaging in film criticism, but using the movie to promote a political point of view. That's fine, but that doesn't show that the "movie's true hero" is not George Bailey, only that they would like the true hero to be someone else.
• As part of this article, mentioning them is simply a coatrack -- a way of smuggling in discussion about an unrelated topic.

I removed the text, and User:Teishin reverted, saying "restore sourced alternative interpretations per WP:NPOV". This has nothing to do with NPOV. Those sources are not points of view about the movie, but simply political commentaries using the movie to make a point. --Macrakis (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue is about a claim about George Bailey, giving one point of view. Points of view are often political. There are alternative points of view about that claim. Capra is of course entitled to his point of view, and if there's a source for it that could be worth adding to the article. This situation, however, doesn't fit the definition of coatrack. Teishin (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any dispute that George Bailey is presented as the hero of the movie. The cited articles, in fact, agree with that. They are saying that he shouldn't be the hero of the story, because they admire Mr. Potter or Mary Hatch more. You could equally well argue that, say, The Godfather should have been shot in black and white, or that 2001 would have been a better movie if HAL had succeeded in killing the astronauts and completing the mission on his own. At best, that sort of thing might be covered under "reception" of the movie. But even that goes well beyond encyclopedic coverage of reception. And in any case doesn't belong in the article about the individual character. --Macrakis (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This section of text is not about what George Bailey is presented as; it is about opinions such as those of the American Film Institute. If similar issues regarding the meaning of The Godfather or 2001 were correspondingly as frequently discussed, they too would warrant encyclopedic coverage. This is not about what one could equally well argue; it is about what is actually argued. Teishin (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

George Bailey is presented as the hero by the film. The American Film Institute lists him as one of the greatest screen heroes. The "greatest" part is the AFI's opinion; I don't think there's any dispute about the "hero" part.

The political articles don't question whether he is presented as a hero. Their opinion is about whether he should be the hero, because they consider him to be a left-wing radical who is destroying people's livelihoods. They are just using the movie to present their political position, which of course they're free to do. It just isn't relevant to an encyclopedia article about the character.

It is arguably relevant to an article about the movie in an appropriate section (cf. The Fountainhead#Feminist criticisms) or about Capra's politics, but it really isn't about the individual character.

I think we're stuck. I'll ask for a third opinion. --Macrakis (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the issue is that for It's a Wonderful Life we have articles about the individual characters. For most films, individual characters are discussed as part of the film. For example, in the film you cited The Fountainhead there is no article about the character Howard Roark; there is just a section devoted to that character. But in that section we see a similar discussion about interpretation.

She denied that Wright had anything to do with the philosophy expressed by Roark or the events of the plot.[9][10] Rand's denials have not stopped commentators from claiming stronger connections between Wright and Roark.[10][11] Wright equivocated about whether he thought Roark was based on him, sometimes implying that he did, at other times denying it.[12] Wright biographer Ada Louise Huxtable described significant differences between Wright's philosophy and Rand's, and quoted him declaring, "I deny the paternity and refuse to marry the mother."[13] Architecture critic Martin Filler said that Roark resembles the Swiss-French modernist architect Le Corbusier more closely than Wright.[14]

Consequently, this looks like an NPOV issue. Teishin (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussing whether the character and the author have similar political philosophies is quite different from deciding that the film should be re-interpreted to suit a third-party commentator.

For now, until we get more input, I'll move that material to its own section and reword it to be clearer. --Macrakis (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I've put the political commentary in its own section and tried to reflect its position accurately. I still think it doesn't belong in the article. --Macrakis (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are you obscuring the "other perspectives"? They are plainly political -- unlike the AFI listing. --Macrakis (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You are the one introducing new content. Why are you adding content to the article about political views? Teishin (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Moving the hero claims out of the lede seems quite reasonable. The WP:NPOV issue is about excluding citations for several interpretations of the character because of the political views of the sources. Teishin (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The AFI content belongs in the lead.

The political commentary disguised as "interpretations of the character's role" does not belong in the article at all. --Macrakis (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Interpretations you approve of belong in the lede. Interpretations you do not approve of do not belong in the article at all. How can this now not be seen as an WP:NPOV issue? Teishin (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If you think those "interpretations" belong in the article, why do you consider that reporting on them fully and accurately is bias? --Macrakis (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If you think editorializing about published interpretations is not bias, what is it you consider bias to be? How can disparaging sources you don't agree with by putting them in scare quotes as "interpretations" not be viewed as bias? Teishin (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Those articles are not interpreting the movie, they are objecting to its portrayal of George as a good guy.

In any case, as I've said before, they aren't really talking about the character, but about the political choices of the movie, which they disagree with. --Macrakis (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, Blablubbs, 73.74.92.126, MinishLAN, and 145.53.238.143:, I see that there has been a related discussion on Mr. Potter, using the same sources. You might want to participate in the discussion here. --Macrakis (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Add now a violation of WP:CANVASS in addition to one of WP:NPOV. Teishin (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you are misinterpreting WP:CANVASS. The very first line of that guideline is "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

In particular, it says that it is appropriate to contact "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)".

I have carefully followed every point of the CANVASS guidelines:

Scale: Limited The notification was limited to those who have previously expressed interest in the topic. Mr. Potter is clearly closely related to George Bailey ... in fact, so closely related that you have added the same content there as here.

Message: Neutral As CANVASS recommends, the notification is "polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". I said that there was a "related discussion...using the same sources". I didn't say whether I thought that was a bad thing or a good thing.

Audience: Nonpartisan I contacted every editor on that other page who had addressed this issue, and did not select only those who agreed with me. As it happens, they all do agree, but I will wait for further discussion.

Transparency: Open I was also transparent about it, "leaving a note at the discussion itself" as recommended.

So I see no problem. --Macrakis (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• George Bailey is, was, and forever will be the hero of the film. That's why Clarence takes him on a trip to see what would have been if George was never born. What else do you think the film is about? The secondary heroes are Mary, who raises their children and presents George with "A wonderful life", and Clarence, who shows George that he has lived a "wonderful life" and will continue to do so. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• In general, such commentary can be appropriate, but this article is in bad shape, and the introduction of the commentary is sloppy. We do not even have any coverage from secondary sources that analyze the character as a hero. As a result, the contrarian commentary that is being introduced is WP:UNDUE weight in the article. Not to mention that there is an excessive number of inline citations; two commentators are cited twice when once is enough. There is also a lack of in-text attribution and paraphrasing why the commentators think that. It's also possible that a standalone article is not warranted because there is so much overlap between the film and the singular protagonist. Anything written about the film's themes would primarily be about Bailey and his actions. In the meantime, the current version violates WP:PLOT and WP:WAF in being much, much more in-universe content than out-of-universe content. I would suggest redirecting this character to the film's article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Erik if the article about this character should not exist, then the several other articles about other characters shouldn't exist either, should they?Teishin (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's A Wonderful Life and its main characters are among the most loved films and characters in film history. To suggest removing them is a personal opinion, and in the Christmas spirit of personal opinions let me add to the idea: "Ridiculous" and "Humbug". If articles on these four characters are removed then that pretty much says that there should be no articles on Wikipedia about film or television series characters, period. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

One step at a time. So far, I think we've established a consensus that that particular commentary about the "hero" is out of place (Macrakis, Randy Kryn, Erik), so can be removed here and at Mr. Potter. Then perhaps someone could mark the character articles for a merger discussion. --Macrakis (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

George Bailey as the hero is not something that should be removed, but added to. So at least two editors are thinking of discussing the merger of George Bailey, Mary Hatch Bailey, and Clarence Odboddy at Christmastime in the year of our fnord, 2020? This came up all of a sudden, and should go away just as quickly. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the merger or removal. If someone is for it, they can propose it and we can discuss it. In the meantime, we do have consensus about the original topic of this thread. --Macrakis (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

No, we have not established a consensus. I certainly don't agree. Erik only thought the commentary was getting undue weight because there was insufficient commentary about the opposite view. Randy Kryn only opined about who they thought was the hero. They said nothing about removing sources that think otherwise. Indeed, they point out that the film and its characters are of great importance in film history. For that reason it seems important to include in this article a variety of interpretations about the film.Teishin (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not "personal opinion" to suggest removing them. A standalone page has to be justified per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Since we are talking about a single film here, all the characters within that film would need substantial coverage from reliable sources to justify what is technically a sub-article. Think of it like a film having a "Production" section that is too long; we would split that off into its own article based on the amount of detail about that sub-topic. While these characters have appeared in multiple works, Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters shows articles that have character-centric detail. So when it comes to George Bailey, there would need to be similar such detail, so much that it could not be part of the film's article. But that has to be shown through research and editing. I am sure that the potential exists, but the work has to be done. Otherwise, there is no visible reason to have a scope beyond the film. From what I've seen, it's usually secondary characters that get that scope, like Joker (The Dark Knight) or Anton Chigurh (though I don't think the quality of the latter is that great). It would need to be pretty significant to write an article about George Bailey that would be distinct from a Featured Article about It's Wonderful Life that covers all the academic coverage and similar commentary. A separate article grouping the characters is also possible, but is it anything that would be bigger than a "Cast" section (all in-universe detail aside)? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

George Bailey, one of the most beloved film characters and a symbol of Christmas. A popular article since 2007. And Bailey and the others are presented in a 2020 television special as well, so are not one-film characters. Are we really going to have a holiday merge discussion about the iconic characters from the iconic film? At a bare minimum the pages should be kept per WP:IAR. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The film is one of the most beloved and a symbol of Christmas, and George Bailey is a key part of that. You say this is "a popular article", but is it an encyclopedic article? It is swamped in in-universe detail, which is already covered in the film's article (because his journey is what the film shows). The in-universe content needs to be vastly reduced, and the out-of-universe content needs to be vastly expanded, especially enough to indicate that it cannot just be on the film's article. I wouldn't apply IAR with this article being the shape it is in. It isn't an article for Wikipedia to be proud of.

In any case, going back to the newer and contrarian commentary, my issue is that it is hard to fit that in when there's not much of a "core" commentary talking about the character's traits as the protagonist. So unless someone can expand the "Analysis" section to be more well-rounded with whatever has been said about the character between the film's release and the 2010s, the inclusion of the contrarian commentary would be undue weight. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that section can be expanded. I can take that on. Teishin (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I started a "Contemporary reception" section, but it could perhaps be paraphrased in some parts. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I took a shot at expanding the section to give more balance. Here's a draft:

A large number of interpretations of ‘’It’s a Wonderful Life’’ have been advanced, and as George Bailey is the protagonist, many of those interpretations hinge on interpretations of his role in the film. Bailey is conventionally interpreted as the hero of the film, and he was listed ninth on the American Film Institute's 2003 list of the 50 greatest screen heroes. While the film shows some obvious instances of heroic behavior in Bailey’s youth, such as saving his brother Harry from drowning and preventing Mr. Gower from poisoning a customer, doubts about the worth of Bailey’s adulthood actions turn into the central question of his life. Bailey’s deficiencies as a hero are highlighted by the facts that the film’s climatic scene portrays Bailey as the person being rescued and that “Capra was forced to invoke a deus ex machina, a guardian angel, to convince Bailey of the worth of his life.” Because of these issues some commentators on the film consider the movie's true hero to be either Mary Hatch or Mr. Potter.

Citing generosity as Bailey's most admirable trait, Time magazine lists George Bailey among their top ten movie dads. Others, however, view him as portraying a “weak or castrated father”

About the Third Opinion request: The request for a Third Opinion in regard to this dispute has been removed because a third editor entered the discussion after the request was filed, thus either (depending on how you want to look at it) giving a third opinion or exceeding the only-two-editors requirement for a 3O to be issued. If further content dispute resolution is needed, consider Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or Request for Comment but please be sure to thoroughly read and follow the instructions at those venues. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

References