Talk:Horror film

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Horror film article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Horror film is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 22, 2005 Peer review Reviewed November 10, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted December 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles Horror Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Popular culture (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture articles Culture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Paranormal Top‑importance This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for Horror film (38 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 2,786 2,786 Characteristics 7,422 14,321 Cinematic techniques 2,261 2,261 Music 896 896 Themes 3,742 3,742 History 82 82 Sub-genres of horror films 243 19,474 Body horror 1,059 1,059 Christmas horror 1,725 1,725 Erotic horror 2,521 2,521 Folk horror 1,939 1,939 Found footage horror 988 988 Gothic horror 2,383 2,383 Natural horror 2,537 2,537 Psychological horror 462 462 Religious horror 1,429 1,429 Slasher film 1,638 1,638 Supernatural horror 420 420 Teen horror 2,130 2,130 Regional horror films 28 11,573 Asian horror films 2,078 2,078 European horror films 1,618 1,618 Oceania 14 4,633 Australia 2,559 2,559 New Zealand 2,060 2,060 North America 22 3,216 Mexico 3,194 3,194 Effects on audiences 25 7,022 Psychological effects 2,569 2,569 Physical effects 4,428 4,428 Reception 17 8,724 In film criticism 5,779 5,779 Censorship 2,928 2,928 References 17 19,734 Notes 25 25 Bibliography 19,692 19,692 Further reading 476 476 External links 477 477 Total 84,669 84,669

We've agreed this is a legitimate and recognized subgenre, but Andrzejbanas wants to gain consensus on the wording of the addition. I've taken their concerns expressed about previous versions of the addition into account and am proposing this:

Films with a Christmas setting dating to the early 1900s have included elements common in modern horror, but the subgenre fully emerged during the early 1970s and was controversial due to its departure from traditional treatments of Christmas in film.^{[1]: 2, 9 [2]} The roots of the genre are part of a seasonal tradition in the UK dating to prehistoric early celebrations of the winter solstice.^[2][3][4] An early example Early examples of the modern Christmas horror genre in film is are the 1972 Silent Night, Bloody Night and the 1974 Black Christmas.^[2][3]

GoneIn60 and Robert McClenon, would you be willing to weigh in again? Valereee (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I think in general, it's a good start. The text can be tweaked further after insertion as needed. One concern, however, is using THR to support the "prehistoric" claim. The excerpt from the source states, "Ghost stories were considered an English Christmas tradition, a means to recognize winter as a season of death and decay along with the new life promised by Christmas and the birth of Christ." Dating back to the birth of Christ doesn't imply prehistoric times. I'm also not seeing that mentioned in the Gutter Review source, but even if it is, that's a low-profile pop culture website that probably isn't a good enough reference to stand on its own. If I'm missing something, please let me know.
  And finally, I think it's just an important to mention Black Christmas, if not more important, based on the sources' claims that this was the real beginning of the genre (when it "took off" according to THR). You may also want to make sure NPR is cited for the "roots of the genre" claim, since NPR and THR are the strongest supporters that tie this all together IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection to tweaking prehistoric. Certainly happy to include Black Christmas and add the NPR source to 'roots of'. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've made those changes. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Again, I take issues with the wording. "Films with a Christmas setting dating to the early 1900s have included elements common in modern horror". Careful with words like "modern". What is this referring to? the 1970s films? the 21s century films? It's not clear what this means. Having elements of horror is also vague, beacause that term is not was not used regularly back then. (You can read more about it .) And as I brought up again, they weren't railing against a trend or genre, they were railing against specific films. This has not addressed any of the issues I brought up with the last entry. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And actually, I'm not seeing anything in the cited THR source about films in the early 1900s. This sentence may need to be crafted differently with an adjustment to citations. As for "modern", THR uses this term differently throughout the article. The first occurrence refers to the "scaled up" horror elements in the 70s and 80s being a modern form of "Christmas ghost stories"; it is NOT calling the horror films of that time modern. But later on, it does call the subgenre as a whole (which first appeared in the 70s) a "modern reinvention of the Christmas ghost story". Again, this is not referring to "modern horror" per se, so it does appear that some clarity is needed in that opening sentence. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoneIn60, if I'm understanding your question correctly, THR says "While Christmas horror is considered a phenomenon that began in the 20th century with the advent of film and television, it goes back even further." So that would support early 1900s? Valereee (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A careful read is that Christmas horror began in the 20th century, which could be referring to years 1900-1999. It then says "with the advent of film of television", but this portion is just referring again to the century in which these formats appeared, not necessarily the beginning of the century (which we know is true, because television didn't really appear until after WWII). The assumption of "early 1900s" doesn't appear to be adequately supported here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Began in the 20th century with the advent of film and television for me clearly indicates early century, but okay. Valereee (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User:Valereee has offered a proposed wording, and User:GoneIn60 has said it's a good start, but User:Andrzejbanas appears to take issue. Do they have either a different suggestion or a suggestion for an improvement? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I've said it earlier, but I can't really find valid content within the sources mentioned to actually formulate this into something palpable. Unless there is depth within the book I haven't read, the source as they stand do not have enough information to function into anything useful for readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon, Andrzejbanas is unable to come up with a suggestion, but has objected to all of mine as not useful to readers (among more than a dozen other objections over the course of this discussion; every time I address one, they come up with another).

  Their current objection seems to be that if they themselves can't write it, it shouldn't be included. I've previously addressed the concern that there's nothing in the sources that is useful for readers: The essential understanding readers take away is that horror includes a subgenre of Christmas horror. It seems to have a history, to have emerged as a genre fifty years ago and have been referred to as a subgenre as recently as two years ago. Those are things readers may want to know about the overall genre.

  I am trying to be patient and assume good faith, but this feeling very much like ownership of the article. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please trust me that if I could write something up that would be of use to readers, I would..As of now, all variations you have added are not stating what the source says. Also you have continuously misinterpreted my issues. I feel like my main issue is that while the publishers of your sources (mostly) have passed WP:RS, the content within them can't be organized in any serious way to suggest what they promise: either a cycle or history of this sub genre. I don't feel like my points are invalid either, the critical backlash has not been against the genre, just a few individual films and no serious connection has been made to how these connect as a cycle, genre or otherwise. Trust me, I'd rather have this settled sooner, but no issues have addressed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, this seems to be arguing "If I can't write it, it can't be written". Valereee (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, not at all. My issues are your sources and prose have no flow. There is no connection between the spare bits of horror and horror-like fiction here with christmas, despite them having headlines saying "CHristmas horror! let's talk about this sub-genre", they don't go into the meat and potatoes. I'm also not the only person to point our your sources aren't state what you claim, so this is not just me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, my apologies for the delay in getting back to this thread. There was a widespread regional issue with my ISP affecting access to Wikipedia and a few other sites. I went ahead and took the liberties of building upon and rewriting the good start Valereee gave us, based on my earlier analysis. Please have a look and see what you think. This is completely based off the two main sources I analyzed earlier, so if the book also supports any of this, we can certainly throw that in as an additional citation.

Christmas in literature has historically included elements of "darkness" – fright, misery, death and decay – dating as far back as the biblical account of the Massacre of the Innocents and more recently in works such as E. T. A. Hoffmann's "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King" (1816) and Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol (1843).^[2][3] The Christmas horror genre in film emerged in the 1970s,^[3] featuring "scaled up" horror elements that the The Hollywood Reporter calls a "modern reinvention of the Christmas ghost story".^[2] One of the earliest entries is Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972), and this was soon followed by Black Christmas (1974), which is often credited with being one of the most influential that inspired other films in the genre.^[2][3]

Further changes can still be made of course, or we could discard this suggestion altogether, but I think this cuts to the heart of what I was thinking: 2-4 sentences and less than 200 words. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best i've seen so far, but I still take a few issues with it. citing Black Christmas as influencing other films in the genre (which I assume you mean is the Christmas horror here), is not mentioned. NPR: writes "Black Christmas is both underrated and influential. "It's considered by some to be one of the first slasher films in the U.S.," she says." Which suggests influence in slasher, not that the other christmas-themed films that followed. Looking at the NPR source too, I'm back and forth on regularity of what they are saying with genre theme as it's all mostly spoken by someone from the fansite Womeninhorror. The Hollywood Reporter article also states thing like "it didn't take off until Black Christmas" but it doesn't back that up. Per the citations in Black Christmas article, Black Christmas was not a hit that was duplicated for it's christmas theme, the only real mention I see of it influencing anything a bit was Halloween (1978), and did not make as much money as expected theatrically. So stating it was the most influential is vague. It implies it was influential on the genre, which does not appear to be backed up by anything. They discuss it as being an early slasher film (which i'd even argue, but that's another conversation). This is again why I'm saying the sources are really wishy-washy with trying to sell this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I think I'd call "a few issues" remaining progress! Black Christmas is cited as "influential" in both sources, but this point is explored a bit deeper in the THR source, which calls it "the quintessential Christmas horror movie". The label "quintessential" is applied as a way of saying it represents the best of its kind. THR goes on to say that "most of the Christmas horror that would come afterward would either find itself chasing after Clark’s film or Joe Dante’s Gremlins". It also throws in, "it’s now become the formula for slasher movies". So in actuality, we could say it had impact on the slasher genre as a whole, not just films set around Christmas. This source from /Film delves into that a bit deeper. I was just trying to find a way to summarize it briefly to close out the third sentence, but if there's a better idea, we can certainly make changes. As for sources backing up claims with specific examples in running text, I disagree that's a requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia. If we trust the source, then we trust their analysis. We assume they are basing their claim on factual data (or widely-accepted data), regardless if that data is visible in the source or not.

With that said, it sounds like we can move forward one of two ways. Either we leave to consensus the way it is written now, or we attempt to make further improvements that satisfies all parties involved (if that's possible). Curious to know your thoughts. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but "best of its kind" is not really the same as influential. When I was going through the articles on genres, I was really try to preen it form "one of the best ever" and other critical statements, and more about how the films changed the genre or scope or started trends etc. The thing about Black Christmas as you said is that the main focus when people talk about it in these articles and generally is usually revolving around it's influence on the slasher cycle. I appreciate your diligence and replies. That's kind of why I'm kind of trying to find more academic discussion of it, because it's hard to piece together. Your writing so far as been the best in trying to put it together, but I think it's still difficult with the sources we have. The /Film article again goes into how it's important on the slasher, but it's discussing the film in question, not the genre which seems to be the continuing problem in trying to find specific information about the genre, and not a few spare films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, you reviewed my reply and the /Film source, then replied in a span of 10 minutes? That's impressive, but it may have been a bit rushed. Let's try to parse this out:

• "best of its kind" is not really the same as influential ... I was really try to preen it form "one of the best ever" and other critical statements, and more about how the films changed the genre or scope or started trends

The adjective "quintessential" is used to describe something that is the perfect representation of its kind. That means it essentially contains all the components you'd expect to see in other good examples. That doesn't mean it's the best ever of its kind. There is a subtle but important difference. The label isn't even used in our little excerpt. I only mention it, because it is one of several factors that support influential.

• the main focus when people talk about it ... is usually revolving around it's influence on the slasher cycle

As pointed out, the THR source clearly states that the Christmas horror genre "took off" following its release. The source also says that most of the Christmas horror films that followed would chase after Clark's film. If you want to come up with a term besides "influential", we can certainly discuss it, but there's no denying here that both sources are calling out the film's impact. NPR specifically calls it "influential", which is why I rolled with that.

• That's kind of why I'm kind of trying to find more academic discussion of it, because it's hard to piece together

There is nothing wrong with wanting to find something more academic that does a deeper dive. Anything from that realm would be welcome! However, that doesn't mean we don't have enough for inclusion now. If this needs to be modified or removed later on, based on findings from stronger sourcing, this section can always be revisited. Remember, Wikipedia is simply a reflection of what exists in reliably-published sources. There are different levels of reliability. As long as we're basing the claims on some level of reliability, we can use that as a starting point. There are no deadlines that would prevent further improvements.

• The /Film article again goes into how it's important on the slasher, but it's discussing the film in question, not the genre

Yes, this is true. I provided that source in case there was any doubt that it impacted the slasher genre. The impact it had on John Carpenter and the basis for the Halloween franchise is apparent. This is another great source that really delves into that impact. These sources are not meant to support "Christmas horror" specifically, but if any mention of its impact on the larger slasher genre was added, these would make helpful citations. Otherwise, they are just there for personal interest.

I think what this all boils down to is whether or not you consider THR and NPR reliable with these assessments. I happen to believe they satisfy the minimum requirement for inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a quick glance to /Slashfilm, and saw it mostly was discussing it as a slasher film over a Christmas horror one. Thankfully I think that article has helped me go into a direction when I looked up some more information. I think it's important to track sources that describe or at least discuss these works as "Christmas horror" instead of pointing one or two films influence on another genre or sub-genre. So I've taken this form DuPée's book:

• "Scholars have long treated Christmas horror films more as data points within the slasher film subgenre, and certain horror films are well suited for such analysis." (page 5:of Matthew C. DuPée's "A Scary Little Christmas" book)

Of these scholars:

• Kim Newman: "a particularly bizarre and tiny psycho sub-genre [...] Father Christmas is transformed into a terrifying menace." (Kim Newman, "Nightmare Movies" (p. 132-133)
• Adam Rockoff "Yuletide Terror: In Loving Memory of the Christmas Slasher". (Rue Morgue #36). "

On Silent Night, Bloody Night: "It's holiday relevance is limited to its title."(Rockoff, 2003 p.29)

• Never turning away from painting any of the beloved holidays with swaths of crimson, Valentine's Day (My Bloody Valentine), New Year's Eve, April Fool's Day (April Fool's Day -- The slasher genre saw it's potential in depicting Santa's as a homicidal maniac years before controversy over Silent Night, Deadly Night." (Rockoff, 2003 p.30)
• While DuPuee follows that "it can be argued that Christmas horror is a distinct subgenre unto itself." (DuPee p. 5)
• DuPee: "Defining a Christmas horror film can be challenging" (Dupee p. 6)

So applying these, it seems clear there is a split into what consitutes the genre. There appears to be more of a discussion of it being a sub-genre to the slasher film, while DuPee states it has potential to belong to a wider fringe. My suggestion would be to perhaps place this as a sub-genre within the Slasher film article instead as DuPee himself states, that's where most scholars would place it, and then have his alternative suggestion that it's grander, because generally from people who are trying to write about genre as large piece, that seems to be where they cycle around. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have returned to arguing that it's not a subgenre of horror. We've already got consensus that it is. Valereee (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is all good information, but I think it involves a different goal post. The one in question is whether or not we agree with the way the proposal is written. Placement can be debated in another discussion, even after insertion into the horror film article. Let's get over this first hump about the content of the proposal. Given the replies so far you've received, are you satisfied, or would you like to explore any additional changes? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add, if you are still at odds with "often credited with being one of the most influential that inspired other films in the genre", we can simplify that to something like "often credited with being one of the first to have a major impact on the genre". Takes a little uncertain fluff out of there. This statement or claim is not really that important in the grand scheme of things. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to amend some of your quote with some new information Gonein60. Tell me what you think.

Definining a Christmas horror film genre has been described as challenging.^[5] Scholars have predominantly placed Christmas horror as a small genre within the slasher film cycle, emerging in the 1970s, predominantly about killers disguised as Santa Clause.^[3][6][7] Rockoff in Rue Morgue noted it was a trends of dominating slasher films taking placing beloved holidays into a horror context with films like My Bloody Valentine (1981) and April Fool's Day (1986) while DuPee has argued that the Christmas horror was not limited to the slasher subgenre noting that Christmas horror films predominantly take place at home over the variety of locations generalized in slashers.^[7][6]

I would really prefer we focus on the film aspects of it all here. Per the citation above, I don't think we should include Silent Night, Bloody Night as outside it's title, it's narrative not related to Christmas (see the citation above). The genre has it's own article, which can expand on the influences. I don't think my phrasing here is perfect, so I look forward to your responses. Thanks for sticking with this everyone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are coming at this from very different angles. That entire paragraph is focused on one thing: that the subgenre is controversial. It only discusses that aspect from beginning to end. Seems like something we would expect to see in a "Controversy" section within the Christmas horror article and/or slasher film article. Unlike the other two proposals, there is no introduction, nor does it give any solid examples of "Christmas horror". What we are looking for is a condensed version of what we'd expect to see in the lead section of Christmas horror, not something that is only focused on one aspect of the topic. Unfortunately, I believe this moves us further apart than where we were. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is basically what I started out suggesting, lo these 20 goalpost moves ago: the main points at Christmas horror.

@GoneIn60, I had been assuming good faith, thinking this must be well-intentioned but wrongheaded ownership, but now I'm having a hard time AGFing any more. This feels like a war of attrition. It feels to me like Andrzej wants us to throw up our hands and walk away. Valereee (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we may need to summarize this discussion the best we can in a new section, agree on that summary (hopefully, we can do that much), and then solicit further outside opinion perhaps starting with WP:FILM. I had assumed we were trying to write something similar to what appears at Thriller film#Sub-genres. Decent examples are subsections there that have citations, like Action thriller and Crime thriller. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and I see they've been at ANI multiple times for similar behavior: here, here, here, and, oh, here, where they called adding content without discussing "vandalism", here, here...the list goes on and on and on. There are 41 noticeboard sections this person is involved with, most of them complaints about him, some ending in blocks or warnings for him.

@Andrzejbanas, make no mistake, I am not going away. Your behavior here is way over the line. I don't think I've dragged someone to ANI more than a handful of times in fifteen years, but I'll do it if I have to, and between this and my fifteen-point post above, I've already got the diffs at hand. Stop your disruptive behavior. GI60 has been very patient with you, but we already have consensus on their original suggestion. Valereee (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to list examples, as per the person who wrote the book, it's hard to define the genre. As genre is subjective, and as there are at least two schools of thought on what the genre consists of, listing examples would be confusing. I don't think the Christmas horror one is specifically about film, so I tried to focus this from a film genre pov. Also Valereee, please comment on the content, not the user or any editing past. I'm really hurt you are not contributing to finding some prose we can agree on and are just trying to attack me. Yes, I've been blocked and if you check further, many of these have been cut short or were removed a day after because they were silly edits or edits from over ten years ago. Saying "I'm not going away" instead of saying what you do or do not like about my proposals is not very constructive. What specifically do you have trouble with in my last suggestion?Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that you keep moving the goalposts, bring up a new objection every time your current one is addressed, and then circle right back to recycling previous ones. I'm talking about behavior here, and your behavior qualifies as disruptive editing in multiple ways. I don't want to have to take this to ANI, which is where behavior is discussed, but I felt I should first warn you that disruptive behavior is what I'm seeing. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit my attitude towards how I felt about has changed. This is a normal human thing. But, i've provided a new phrase which I think clarified what the author of the book you state is valuable says. Yes, I'll admit i've been frustrating here, but you have not been commenting on my suggestions, just my character by pointing on previous bans. I don't think I own this article, if I did, I wouldn't even be having this conversation, and I wouldn't have spent time finding more scholarly articles. I've even found some that had shown we shouldn't have gone with previous iterations, for example Silent Night, Deadly Night has nothing plotwise to do with Christmas. I've read further in the book that say the author noted the genre is hard to define. What again is wrong with this new content other than it's different? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support GI60's proposed addition. Valereee (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure why you are supporting another implementation that does not state what is discussed in the articles cited. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think GI60 did a lovely job. Great prose, thoughtful interpretation, hits all the important points. Valereee (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are clearly ignoring me at this point as I've stated that the sources in question don't state what is written in the prose. It fails WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." I've made my statements above which make it clear what the issue is. I can't really take rebuttal seriously if you don't at least try to acknowledge them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not ignoring you. I'm disagreeing with you. Valereee (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain what you specifically disagree with? I feel like it's not really a case of opinion. The prose does not match what is stated by the citations. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And I'm saying it does. That's what I disagree with.

  Oh, and by the way: You are definitely ignoring me. So maybe don't throw stones. Valereee (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If I was ignoring you, I wouldn't be addressing you. I hate to say it, but if you can't elaborate on how it actually states what is being stated (and as far as I've read, it doesn't). And yes, from your link, you have addressed some of my concerns. You have found more valid sources, but nobody has provided prose that states what is being claimed.

  I will admit, I did miss the entire post you made with the numbers and GoneIn60s's follow-up as a new heading was made, I leapt to that. I apologize, it was an honest mistake. To clarify, i've tried using my access to the Wikipedia Library to do any further research and see if there were any Media Journal entries about this. If there are, I haven't found any. The articles in question still basically seem to be having fun with the idea of Christmas horror, but do not really connect the dots. At one point they say Black Christmas is an influential one, but more so as a early slasher film than anything specific with this discussed genre. And the protests or controversy doesn't relate that people were protesting a genre, just a few films here or there. So please forgive me missing the big post, as new headings were suggested. The sources are valuable publications, the content in the article has yet to make any serious convictions about genre or sub-genres. So Just by saing "well i think it does", sort os suggests to me you are ignoring my issues. I did miss your previous posts, and I appreciate you pointing them out, but I'll have to ask you to actually address the issues I brought up if we can continue this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've addressed every issue you've brought up. Please reread this long discussion. I'll ignore the implied double standard. Valereee (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The only address i've seen is you that you disagree that content sources matches the content, but you haven't elaborated on my ask to elaborate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See above. Valereee (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have consensus with GI60's proposal. I'll wait until tomorrow to add it. Valereee (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been exactly one comment from you saying you approve, when I asked about the issues you said they have been addressed. Nothing in my edit here about the current prose from @GoneIn60: has been addressed and would just be another edit tagged that the content is not in the source. Please try to take this seriously if you want it added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're under the impression that I'm not taking seriously a discussion I've spent hours on over several days (and time on over several weeks). Valereee (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's more about you not addressing the issues. Which I've said and you have replied to. I would really stress actually responding to the current issue instead of finding issue with me personally. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed every issue you've raised. We simply disagree. We now have consensus on a proposed addition. That's enough, really. Valereee (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly failing a rule WP:OR. Which I've showcased. You can disagree, which you've stated, but you have to be able to showcase that it addresses the issue. Per WP:BURDEN, you have to showcase how it actually follows the content rules before restoring it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided citations. GI60 has provided citations. We have consensus that there are citations for this content. Valereee (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you aren't hearing me. One last time, the content in both your prose does not match the source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a little early to call for consensus. I think the important thing here is that we continue to try to find middle ground; a solution that satisfied both sides. If we reach a point where we hit a wall, then we leave it up to consensus and think about widening the participation, which may involve inviting others from the WikiProject to weigh in (or perhaps an RfC as a last resort). Let's hold off on all that for now and see if we can find a path forward. Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okey doke. I think a third opinion provides consensus, but I'm willing to keep trying if you are. Valereee (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pleaes refer to the conversation above GI60 and I are having, as we're trying to find a mutual solution still there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this, I'm paying attention. If it's something else, please give me a diff. Valereee (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GI60, do you still think it's too early to call it consensus? Valereee (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we did our due diligence and attempted to accommodate further discussion to see if we could find some common ground. That doesn't appear to be possible at this point. Andrzejbanas' latest proposal essentially tosses everything we had out the window moving the sides further apart. Your call if we want to get a few more to weigh in or roll with what we got. No one is reading that wall of text, unfortunately. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. No one really wants to read that unless they have to.

Maybe a reasonable next step would be for me to add your proposed language, which will clearly show consensus. If anyone does come in and want to understand, the discussion is here. Thoughts? Valereee (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Copied it directly, except fixing a dab, although I'm wondering if

which is often credited with being one of the most influential that inspired other films in the genre

could possibly be better as

which is often credited with being one of the most influential and having inspired other films in the genre? Valereee (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60, aaaaaaaand he's reverted with an edit summary conversation is ongoing and no consensus has been made on the talk page. I'm willing to do another, but it might be better if you did the next. Valereee (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised you guys are discussing whether it should be included in two different threads. Yes, I've suggested something different, and mine remains on topic about film, and goes more into depth. Yes, my suggestion was different, but neither have you explained to me what the issue was. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been in both subsections discussing this. And GI60 has explained at length, as have I. Valereee (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after discussions have been had. Valeree, you have not been discussing my content, just perceived behavior of owning the article when I have clearly found more research and after both of you said "well that's a different suggestion", which I don't think should be a surprise, because I found more discussion on the topic. I feel the current edit, cherry picks on the book says and ignores others. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we've disagreed with you on that, and we've agreed the proposed language by GI60 should be added. You have reverted against consensus. If it was in the mistaken belief that GI60 and I hadn't agreed there was consensus, please revert yourself. Valereee (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been replying to my requests and are trying to convince me to do something in false pretenses for the ANI you are working on. I feel like this trying to capture me in some Wiki rule I'm unfamiliar with to have it your way. Valeree, please, put past the my edits and perceived behaviour. Yes, i've changed my mind on the topic several times. I'm also someone who's edited wikipedia as long as you have, and have received sevearl barn stars and created over 60 good articles. I've thanked other editors for going through my content and correcting it on my main page because they have done good work. When I asked you several times to comment on the content I've suggested instead of my character, you have continuously just pointed out that I've been trying to own the article. I've moved from not thinking the content was appropriate to actively researching further into your sources and others to find something that I think actually matches what the sources say. The previous consensus you wrote has glaring errors which neither your or GoneIn60 has brought up. For example, Rue Morgue pointed out (and I've sourced above), that the film Silent Night, Deadly Night's only link to Christmas is the title. I believe are frustrated, but please assume good faith. You have made me fear editing a page. I don't think that's what you wanted, but that's where you have put me at. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt you're a valuable editor who does good work and is well-intentioned. You're exhibiting disruptive behavior here. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I do apologize for making knee-jerk reactions. It had made this messy. But, I feel that even after making the requests you made and searched further, and have intrinsically pointed out what the issuers are and what rules they break, you simply respond "well I don't agree", but it's not my opinion. It's from the book you suggest we use, and it's from new sources I've found. When i make these edits, your response has been "Oh but before you said it wasn't a genre." I've obviously moved past that, and I'd really like to open this up fresh, because as it stands, I don't support this two-person consensus with prose that has already been proven wrong by the book used in question, and newer citations. Yes, my paragraph was very different, but I felt it more apt than giving hard proofs in genre, because as I've written in the thriller film and action film and even this article, genre is highly subjective, there is very little consistent application of it. I feel like my prose reflects that best and am happy to make edits to it to accommodate what you or anyone thinks is missing from it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the above conversation is difficult and hard to follow. Currently, there is a consensus among two editors to use a proposed draft written by @GoneIn60:. I've made an alternative write-up with new information I have found. I don't think mine is necessarily perfect or has to be used. but it offers new insight, and among the research I've brought up, it points out details in the current agreed upon write-up which are just off (specifically, Silent Night, Bloody Night, despite it's title has nothing to do with Christmas, and goes against either Newman's, Rue Morgue's, or DuPuee opinions on what makes up the genre. Further, it ignores the new information from Newman and the Rue Morgue article. Let me be clear, It does not have to go my way and I have changed my opinion back and forth on the article, but please assume good faith, I want to make this better, and in it's current state, I'm trying to apply WP:BURDEN to have content within apply. Can we find some middle ground here to work this out? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some form of your proposal may be appropriate in a "Controversy" section of Christmas horror, pending further discussion on that article's talk page. For this article, we are looking for a brief introduction, a condensed version of what we'd expect to see in a lead section. Discussing only the controversy does not accomplish that. This has already been explained to you above. If we cannot agree on what a proper introduction looks like, then I'm afraid there's no middle ground to shoot for.

Also, you spent the better half of the discussion disparaging the book source with comments like these, but that opinion flipped on its head as soon as you uncovered that possible support for your argument was contained within. I think the problem here is that you've made up your mind on your position, and that you're only willing to accept sources that support your viewpoint, which is why the book suddenly became the ultimate source of reliability. Valereee and I have tried to discuss this at length, but the more it is discussed, the further apart both sides get. I don't believe further discussion will lead to different results at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That was to wrong to be hasty with. But, I feel like ignoring it now, would be just having unraveled comments. I definitely was in the wrong there, that's why I ask (and I know it's a big ask) that we try to focus on what changing what is now currently, calling something a Christmas horror film that has nothing to do with Christmas outside it's title. I don't think it has to be my content, but I've only heard comments about behavior. We are supposed to discuss content, not the editing patterns of users. I don't really want to do a condensed form, because that article is about the genre spanning beyond film, while this one should probably primarily focus on the film aspects. I suppose I could be alone on this, but doesn't that make sense for a film article @GoneIn60:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"calling something a Christmas horror film that has nothing to do with Christmas outside it's title"

Are you still referring to Silent Night, Bloody Night, which is set on Christmas eve? Seems to qualify to me, but our opinions don't really matter. THR and NPR both mention it as an example. We are just stating what the sources state.

The discussion becomes exhausting and turns into a wall of text when basic facts have to be explained, sometimes several times. I think the excerpt you read in the book misled you to believe the film had nothing to do with Christmas. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the prose, I've copied it here. ""Although its holiday relevance is limited to its title, there's not denying 1973 seasonal offering, Silent Night Bloody Night is one bizarre film." Watching the film, the Christmas eve is a quick narration over a brief sequence that takes place on Christmas eve. I'm skimming through the film here, and I see a bit more Christmas imagery? I mean, but the sources states that. I've reconfirmed it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am comfortable stating what THR and NPR state, since we consider those reliable sources. They are also the only citations currently being cited. You and I both know, however, that this is only a minor concern of yours. If we offered to drop it from the text, you'd still have a long list of other concerns. This will likely be my last comment about film examples. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If there are competing versions, can someone please group them together in this section so it is easier to see what people agree on. Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There were multiple but the one in the article right now is

  Christmas in literature has historically included elements of "darkness" – fright, misery, death and decay – dating as far back as the biblical account of the Massacre of the Innocents and more recently in works such as E. T. A. Hoffmann's "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King" (1816) and Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol (1843).^[2][3] The Christmas horror genre in film emerged in the 1970s, featuring "scaled up" horror elements that the The Hollywood Reporter calls a "modern reinvention of the Christmas ghost story".^[2] One of the earliest entries is Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972), and this was soon followed by Black Christmas (1974), which is often credited with being one of the most influential that inspired other films in the genre.^[2][3]

  and the other currently being argued is this.

  Definining a Christmas horror film genre has been described as challenging.^[8] Scholars have predominantly placed Christmas horror as a small genre within the slasher film cycle, emerging in the 1970s, predominantly about killers disguised as Santa Clause.^[3][6][7] Rockoff in Rue Morgue noted it was a trends of dominating slasher films taking placing beloved holidays into a horror context with films like My Bloody Valentine (1981) and April Fool's Day (1986) while DuPee has argued that the Christmas horror was not limited to the slasher subgenre noting that Christmas horror films predominantly take place at home over the variety of locations generalized in slashers.^[7][6]

  Valereee (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Valereee[reply]

  Thanks @Valereee:. I don't necessarily think mine is a final draft or anything, but I do think in an article about the film genre, we should focus on the film aspect. I've specifically brought out discussions which I felt go more into what the genre is or isn't. This is my current issue with the contemporary set-up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Betty Logan, you may want to be aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Behavioral_issues_at_Talk:Horror_film. Valereee (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can assume they can read the discussion here, but thanks for pointing this out, but I don't really see why you having personal issues with me apparently trying to own an article, when I'm actively seeking out other groups and editors to comment is me "owning" an article. This is also something I've brought up in your post there, because more voices makes for a better consensus. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They are not that far removed from each other to be honest. I think version 2 starts better (it seems more logical to begin with trying to define the genre and then tracking its evolution along with its literary antecedents), but removing the keynote films in the genre seems slightly counter-intuitive to me. I honestly don't think it would be that difficult to reconcile the strengths of both versions, there is enough common ground there. If you would like I could take a bash at merging them, but that would only work if both sides of the debate are receptive to that—I don't want to inflame tensions further. Betty Logan (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Betty Logan, completely open to you taking a bash <g> at it. I am really uncomfortable with you being canvassed here, though. It's just problematic. But if you've got a good idea, please do bring it up. Valereee (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can understand why you would feel like that, but I have guided articles to GA and FA status so I do have a decent track record on articles. What I will do is have a bash at reconciling the two versions, put I won't try to impose my attempt on the article. If you don't like my attempt that's cool, I am happy for you to veto it. It probably won't be perfect anyway, but with any luck it might be acceptable enough to break the deadlock, subject to refinements. I have worked with GoneIn60 in the past, and I think ordinarily he would be happy to have me as an extra pair of eyes. Betty Logan (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The chances I'd object to anything reasonable are extremely slim. The chances I'd try to unilaterally veto anything are zero. There's actually no deadlock here. What's here is two editors trying desperately to get a third editor to agree to anything, getting sealioned, finally throwing up our hands and declaring consensus, getting that consensus version reverted, and getting sealioned again. Valereee (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no issues with further refinement. One thing to keep in mind is that the term "scholars" is being used loosely I think by the book source. Ulaby and Newby, authors of the citations in version 1, would seem to fit the same classification. Also, all parties involved agreed to keep this succinct, which leaves a small amount of room (perhaps 1 additional sentence) for discussing the controversial aspect. Seems like that can definitely be elaborated further in the Christmas horror article. GoneIn60 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds okay to me GoneIn60! If I got the okay from others, I could try again, but I'd like the okay from GoneIn60 or Valereee if that's understandable. I do like trying to define it first. This sort of follows what other sections that went out, like, the Gothic horror section. Perhaps GoneIn60, if we could pressure you more, maybe you'd be better equipped to find some happy medium. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's see what BL can come up with. Valereee (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll try to give it a go later today. I realize it may be difficult for anyone to try and re-do it without access to the sources I have. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously, let's see what @Betty Logan can come up with. Valereee (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrzejbanas, sorry, meant to ping you, too. Valereee (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem. @Valereee:, you don't have to quote citations, but is there anything you particularly think is important and should be included from either variation we have so far? I'd like to try to incorporate it before I try to write up some prose guessing at what we want. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Andrzejbanas, we are waiting for Betty to write something up based on what you have already written and what is already in the article. If it's something we feel is an improvement, we will incorporate the proposed changes, or at least a portion of them. There's no reason for you to write an additional proposal at this point. Please standby. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. If you need access or clarification at it Betty, give me a ping. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrzejbanas, please don't write any prose. Please wait for BL to write it. Seriously, this would come across as WP:OWNership. Valereee (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing in the link you have provided @Valereee: that suggests making a suggested edit on a talk page is ownership. (see WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). I've asked you to help contribute and apologized for previous behavior. If anything, I'm following Wikipedia:Civility. If I'm wrong or missed something here, please point it out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Betty's draft — Sorry for the slight delay guys. Unfortunately, I was fairly tired last night when I was asked for comment and didn't feel I could do it justice. As I discovered, defining a definition is actually really difficult! Anyway, here is my attempt. I think the main drawback is that it is probably slightly longer than any of you would have liked, but that resulted from a good faith attempt to capture all the salient points from the two versions presented above. I have taken the sourcing on good faith, so that may need to be double-checked if you go forward with this version in some way. If you feel it is a step backwards and would prefer to junk it, there will be no hard feelings on my part; whilst compromise is a large part of collaborating on Wikipedia, nobody should ever compromise on quality and factually accuracy just to resolve a dispute. Likewise, if both parties feel it has moved the debate in a fruitful direction, but still requires refinement, then you guys can take it from here. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defining the Christmas horror film genre has been described as challenging,^[9] although commentary predominantly regards Christmas horror as a sub-genre of the slasher film.^[3][6][7] Christmas horror emerged in the 1970s with films that scaled up the horror element of the holidays, such as Whoever Slew Auntie Roo? (1971) and Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972), which were soon followed by the influential Black Christmas (1974).^[2] Adam Rockoff, in Rue Morgue, noted that the sub-genre sits within a trend of holiday themed slasher films, alongside films such as My Bloody Valentine (1981) and April Fool's Day (1986).^[7] Other commentators take a broader view that Christmas horror is not limited to the slasher genre,^[6] and have noted that Christmas in literature has historically included elements of "darkness"—fright, misery, death and decay—tracing its literary antecedents as far back as the biblical account of the Massacre of the Innocents and more recently in works such as E. T. A. Hoffmann's "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King" (1816) and Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol (1843).^[2][3] Although ghosts have largely been replaced by serial killers, Christmas horror creates an outlet through which to explore a modern appreciation of Christmas ghost stories.^[2]

Nicely written, Betty! Good for me. Valereee (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few minor tweaks that I would make following insertion, but nothing that would severely alter this version (for example, I'd probably drop the NPR citation from the first sentence and change "predominantly" to "generally". I would also likely lead with the 2nd sentence, and place the "Defining..." sentence back-to-back with Adam Rockoff's viewpoint). So yes, well done! Has my support. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like those tweaks. Valereee (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My version is fully intended as a starting point, not an end point. I think it would help to get Andrzejbanas's viewpoint first, and then you guys should feel free to make any refinements you consider necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Betty, for your help. Valereee (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the sources shortly and follow-up. As for the phrasing, saying certain films "scaled up the horror element of the holidays" seems to imply the holidays are naturally known for horror. On the fence about Silent Night, Bloody Night's inclusion still as sources seem to argue whether it constitutes as being part of the genre or not. Saying a film is "influential" might come off as peacocky a bit without going into why it was influential, but the material we've found seems to be more oriented around slasher films over the genre we are discussing. I do think we should include that Christmas horror film being a broader genre by critics, but they aren't talking about the early narrative roots in the book. The fact we state "it's broader than the slasher film", but then say it's about ghosts and they've been replaced by serial killers, sounds like we aren't saying it's broader than being a sub-genre of the slasher film in the last bit, which I think is what we are going for? Sorry for the essay here. I'd love to try to an make some edits on the talk page if people are willing to hear me out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the three of can agree a way forward on the changes you wish to make, feel free to do so. I think you could strike out scaled up the horror element of the holidays without it detracting from the summary. Similarly, you could strike out the influential from describing Black Christmas, although THR article makes a strong case for it being so. Generally, I think it helps to give some indication as to why certain films are being name-checked, otherwise other editors come along and add more and more films in and you end up with a laundry list, but I agree it is not essential here. As for your final point, I don't think we are saying that the genre is broader than slasher films: we actually define it as predominantly a slasher film genre, and then present an alternative viewpoint in which others have defined it in broader terms, drawing on a rich literary tradition which includes the Christmas ghost story. I think THR is simply finding common ground between the slasher film format and the rich tradition of the Christmas ghost story, so rather than being reductionist it is simply explaining how the tradition of Yuletide spookiness has influenced the modern horror movie. Betty Logan (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas, I think we've already exhausted a lot of the community's time on this. To date, there are now three 3rd opinions on the matter (including mine), with the latest from Betty being a pretty good attempt at incorporating some of your concerns. Personally, I think this is where we leave it. The information contained is all properly sourced. This is seeming more and more like you don't want to accept the viewpoints presented in THR or NPR, and will argue it tooth and nail until it is all completely removed. That's not going to happen. There are some competing viewpoints, and we've included elements of them all. I'm satisfied with that. Also, keep in mind that while quite a few Christmas horror films are also slashers, not all of them are. Some focus on the supernatural as the antagonist, like we see in Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale or All the Creatures Were Stirring. Even films like Better Watch Out and Gremlins don't really qualify as slashers. This is probably why Dupee argues that it can be described as a distinct subgenre of horror. It is time to move on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Valereee (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are not obligated to comment further or less, Betty asked me for my opinion. I gave it. I did not say in my last review that any of the sourcing was bad Anyhow. I think we can go with what Betty's suggestion is that includes the struck-out material she suggested. I don't think Black Christmas is not influential, but when i tried to write out descriptions of genres, I tried to keep it broad and neutral with others I've re-written, unless we could say like, "it created a wave of Christmas-themed horrors" then we can bank on that with a source that goes into that. But as we don't, it's slightly misleading. Anyways. Let's go with Betty's re-write with the strike out material, unless there are further arguments. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Betty suggested it as a further compromise, but I don't think "influential" should be struck out. It is cited as influential in both THR and NPR. As for "scaled up", I think that portion is only helpful if it follows the description of Christmas horror's literary past ("scaled up" refers to those ghost story elements getting ramped up to another level). We can drop the "scaled up" piece for now and revisit another time if that would bring an end to the current discussion. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As two other users have commented on it, it's probably fine with influential. I think we agree on the scaled up not making sense per what you and I have said. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. If there are no further comments, then I will make the proposed changes tomorrow. Appreciate everyone's willingness to bring this to closure. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Valereee (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the start, I won't be doing anything to impose my version on to the article so I will abstain from this decision, but it looks like you have reached a resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did my best to keep this intact, but I had to make a few minor adjustments to improve the transition into the portion that discusses Christmas in literature. You can see this at the end of the 4th sentence. We are still under our original target of 200 words, so I think we're good, but feel free to comment if there are any issues.

Also, can someone with knowledge of the Rockoff source fill in that citation? Not sure if we need more detail there or not. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it reads well. The reason it was contentious is because the genre sits at the cross-section of so many other genres and traditions, and it's difficult to define. It was much more difficult than I anticipated when I offered to splice the two versions. Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did yeoman work! Thank you for being willing to get into it. Valereee (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is Adam Rockoff, a screenwriter who has written a book on horror films^[10] and contributed a chapter to another book.^[11] But this citation seems to be to an article in Rue Morgue (magazine). I can order the books through ILL, but my library's collection of the magazine doesn't go back to 2003. Valereee (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can tackle the Rockoff citation @GoneIn60:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added it now. If there were any issues with the edit or questions, I'm happy to oblige. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After re-writing the Japanese horror film section, looking at the "Section sizes" section in the article, I feel like our regional area has gone a bit long to read comfortably, even if I don't think it should be cut down per se. I'm suggesting we possibly move some sections to their own articles. I'm thinking Asian horror cinema and European horror cinema to help lighten the load, just as how we moved the History of horror films section earlier. I'd like to hear what other think before just moving them though. It might look weird to have Australian and a few others still together for example, but there's probably a simple solution to this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As its been six months and nobody has replied I will add banners to suggest moving them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the above. The section on regional cinema from around the world has gotten long, particularly with European and Asian film productions. I've requested they be split into their own pages. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems reasonable.★Trekker (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Its been nearly a month as there has been little further questions on the topic. @StarTrekker:, do you have any comments or suggestions about what titles I've proposed to move the sections too? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Andrzejbanas: They seem perfectly fine to me, Horror cinema of Asia and Horror films of Asia (similar to Horror films of Cambodia and Horror films of Mexico) could also work fine.★Trekker (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @StarTrekker: Yeah. I saw those, but we also have British horror cinema (which is what I as first thinking of). It is probably not a big deal and nobody would be confused, but I guess for consistency we could have them match up (really splitting hairs here, but I figured we'd take a look see.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • • Maybe there would be benefit in standardizing them all, but it's not really a pressing issue. I'm fine with whatever you pick.★Trekker (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Fair. If more articles like these can be created, we can standarize them as we go along. I'll prep for moving them tonight or tomorrow. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Got kind of cold feet on doing it as its just you and I talking so I decided to ask WP:FILM to weigh in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The horror film is a film genre that seeks to elicit fear or disgust in its audience for entertainment purposes." is more appropriate as only Horror can also refer to Horror fiction. Other genre articles such as Action film, Adventure film and Comedy film also use the title name as the lede word (e.g. The action film is a film genre that predominantly features chase sequences, fights, shootouts, explosions, and stunt work). AimanAbir18plus (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The horror film is a film genre" is unnecessary MOS:REDUNDANCY, the sentence reads more naturally as "Horror is a film genre".

The article's title and the sentence's "is a film genre" make it clear that the article is not about fiction in general. Belbury (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]