Talk:White Bear (Black Mirror)

Critical reception upped to "very well received"

(Writing this here as it's too long to fit in the edit summary.) In this edit, I have changed the summary of the episode's critical reception from "mainly well received" to "very well received". My reasoning is that the majority of reviews have been overwhelmingly positive towards the episode. On the flip side, the Vulture review is wholly negative (but this is one paragraph-long review out of many), some reviews are mixed (but even those in the "mixed feelings" paragraph seem mainly positive e.g. IBTimes), some critics disliked Crichlow's performance/role (but others praised it) and some rankings of BM episodes don't put "White Bear" at the top (but that's specifically about quality relative to the series rather than quality relative to how a critic would normally review an episode). Overall, I think the weight of positive reviews makes "very well received" an accurate description. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory information on filming location

The article suggests Brooker was inspired to partially rewrite the episode based on something he saw at a former US Air Force base. One of the references backs this up, but another says it was an RAF base, which makes more sense given that this is a British production. It's possible he was "scouting" at one for inspiration and filmed at the other, but it would be good if we could address this apparent discrepancy. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, so it looks like Variety report it was a "former U.S. Air Force base" whereas Brooker is quoted as having said it was an "RAF base" in The Independent, and HuffPost call it a "Royal Air Force base". What do we normally do in this situation—note the discrepancy in prose or a footnote? I think it's significantly more likely to be an RAF base but it's not conclusive (I think it's no coincidence that the American source says U.S. Air Force and the British sources say RAF). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this; I've changed it now to a footnote, with assumption of RAF in prose. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible the location is a former US Air Force base that is now a RAF base? Jonpatterns (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen a suggestion, on social media, that it was RAF Daws Hill. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

That would match up, RAF owed and has been used by US Air Force. Unfortunately, I can not find a source, that would meet Wikipedia's standards, to add the information to the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Same here, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just a note to anyone reading this section: in fact the base was used by the U.S. Air Force; since this discussion, Inside Black Mirror was released and it clarified where "White Bear" was filmed. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 12:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

See also

What, if anything, belongs in the "See also" section? Are items meant just to reflect editors' own editorial ideas, or is some kind of reliably sourced opinion required? I hear that it's sometimes good practice to add a hidden comment to contentious sections to deter drive-by editors from adding any-old-junk as "coat rack" additions, or to at least make them think before adding. But such measures may be quite pointless, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the only possible way we could decide on a sensible list criterion would be through whether reliable sources link White Bear to the work or vice versa; otherwise, it's just based on editor opinion and our favourite works of media that remind us of the episode. No doubt hundreds of films, TV shows, books etc. have similar themes to White Bear, so we need reliable sources to say which comparisons are most significant. But then, if a reliable source compares White Bear to another work in a substantial way then this becomes worth mentioning in the body of the article, so there's no point in a "See also" section at all. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 12:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If there were reliable sources comparing White Bear to another piece of work, then this should be mentioned in an "Analysis" section, similar to USS Callister#Analysis, where USS Callister is compared to works like Star Trek, Galaxy Quest, I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream, Toy Story and No Man's Sky. However, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body per MOS:SEEALSO. That's why the guideline says that whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. It's for the editors to decide what other articles are tangentially related to this one, and then help readers explore them. Radiphus (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

So the key here is "tangentially"? I must admit that the entire concept of "common sense" sometimes seems hard for me to find at Wikipedia. Do we have consensus even for the existing two entries? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we have consensus through editing for the first two, but we can always discuss about them here if someone thinks they do not belong. Radiphus (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I think that they don't really belong. Of course I'm happy to discuss this and leave them on the page for the time being. When you argue above that their inclusion is justified by "editorial judgement and common sense", I think this is far too vague a criterion. There are tons of media that exist that are similar to "White Bear" in so many different ways and I simply don't believe that The Running Man and The Truman Show are the two most similar pieces of media that there are. Instead I think it's fair to say that editors in good faith watched and enjoyed those films, thought they were similar to "White Bear" and added them, but that's not really a good way to build content. Your argument that "See also" links shouldn't repeat ones in the body, and if an RS comments on a comparison then it belongs in the body, is precisely the argument I use to justify my position that there simply shouldn't be a see also section. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly this article is included at The Truman Show#See also, along with 7 other articles. Whether those are any more or less justified than the ones here, I'm not too sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It was added recently by M622, a user who has also contributed to this page and is most likely aware of the ongoing discussion. Regarding Bilorv's opinion that the The Running Man (which i haven't watched) and The Truman Show do not belong in the "see also" list, i would like to hear specific counter-arguements. What, if anything, should be included in that list and what criteria do these two fail? My opinion is that they should be included, because they both deal with similar concepts in the context of reality television; be it vigilantism and moral disengagement (The Running Man) or ignorance and voyeurism (The Truman Show). Radiphus (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happier to see them mentioned in the article main body, supported by sources. But with only two, I don't think it's a major problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure which bit you need me to expand upon—as I say in the first comment I made in this section, my stance is that there's no point in a "See also" section at all. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case, what should we discuss about here? The purpose of "see also" sections in general or in this specific article? For me it's exactly the same: "to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Why should the readers be deprived of that? You said that there are tons of media that exist that are similar to "White Bear". Could you please provide some examples, which can not be found elsewhere in the article already? If you do, i will either try to explain why they are not as related with "White Bear" as the other two, or we will have to add those in the list as well, and we'll see where this takes us. Radiphus (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

This specific article. I'm only talking about this specific article. In general, there are plenty of reasons for a "See also" section, including: a topic warrants mention in the article but isn't mentioned in the current version (what WP:SEEALSO says: "The links in the "See also" section should [...] reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic"). Or if a topic is so large that discussion in the body would be undue weight, but a link is useful, then a "See also" link is appropriate. But this article is a GA and not a high importance topic with many subtopics.

I don't think we need to go into specific examples unless your claim is that out of every work of literature, television, film and art ever created, the two most similar works (or two of the most 10 similar, say) to "White Bear" in all of human history are The Running Man and The Truman Show. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 08:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, i haven't gone through every work of literature, television, film and art ever created yet, so some specific examples would help. MOS:NAVLIST also says: "When deciding what articles and lists of articles to append to any given entry, it is useful to try to put yourself inside the mind of readers: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article." Isn't it safe to assume that someone reading an episode article, might also be interested in exploring similar stories? Are you questioning that? Radiphus (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If I do ever find myself "inside the mind of readers", I'm quite prepared to execute a cunning plan. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't get that reference. Just letting you know, in case a reaction was expected of me. Radiphus (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind. I'm sure one wasn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Missing the point.

Not too sure how to put this, but most of the stuff here misses the point of the script. It is not the switcheroo at the end, amusing though it is. It is that the 'real' audience were entirely happy to behave like the 'White Beared' passive observers. Sheesh. Greglocock (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, except the “real audience” is very aware this is a tv show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.111.229 (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

We say what reliable sources say. I don't recall Brooker ever saying that that's the point of the episode and it's not a recurring point made by reviewers. And on a moment of personal analysis, I'd say that your interpretation is valid but not a common one—instead, what you say is much more commonly said about "The National Anthem", and I think it misses many of the thing that Brooker has said the episode is about to conclude that this is another episode whose main point is that the audience should think critically about what they are enjoying. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 07:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)