Talk:The Wild One

The use of language in the article

Variety magazine is renowned for using flashy language and slang. They're famous for it, and it has it's own name, called "Slanguage". See, for example, Variety's "dictionary" of Slanguage where it gives examples. It's not complete, but serves as a good example: http://variety.com/static-pages/slanguage-dictionary/ You can see that, for example, they sometimes refer to a satellite as a "bird" but we would not use their Slanguage in our encyclopedia because it is not "encyclopedic"... they sometimes refer to dancers as "hoofers" but again, we would not use that... encyclopedias do not use slang or "slanguage" except in a direct quote. Here's another article about "Variety Speak" or "Slanguage": http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2010/oct/29/variety-speak-trade-magazine-language. Also, as I have pointed out, references are not required for plot sections. I'm going to go ahead and remove the Variety-speak as it is clearly an example of Slanguage and is unencyclopedic. Marteau (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The other problem with the Variety capsule review is that it is a flippant and trivial summary of the film. There are whole treatises written on The Wild One, and we should reflect the consensus of the most substantive sources.

I'm not sure why Salty Batter (talk · contribs) keeps changing the Black Rebels description from "gang" to "motorcycle club". This isn't a real club that is the victim of slander. Real clubs, like the Hells Angels and so on, like to insist on politically correct language; "club" instead of "gang", but that is not at issue here. The BRMC is totally fictional and it's clear in the film they represent the what the public imagines a "motorcycle gang" to be. Name-embroidered leather jackets and all. Here are some sources which make clear the BRMC is a "gang": [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9].

Can we please see some justification for changing "gang" to "motorcycle club"? Otherwise we should put it back and stop the edit warring. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Restored "gang" with another citation. We could/should try to incorporate some of Dennis's sources. — Brianhe (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is related to the changing using and meaning of language.

The MC in BRMC stands for Motorcycle Club, that is why. They are an MC not MG. Their name is not embroidered, it is painted as was common place back in those days.

How does a club or a mob cross the line and suddenly become a gang? What defines and constitutes a "gang" anyway?

Even more with use of outlaw motorcycle, clearly the definition of that since the 1950s has changed from when it just meant a club who were not registered with the AMA, to how it is used now, to describe highly structured organizations within which some criminal activities takes place. Anyone who says The Wild One is a movie about what we understand to be an outlaw motorcycle club or "gang" today has either not seen the movie or had nothing to do with a real MC, or both.

Was it influential in the development of what came later (moreso Lee Marvin and the Beetles than Brando and the BRMC)? Yes. But was it about one? Clearly no.

"A mob of youths on motorcycles" is far more accurate. That's all they were. From their use of language, "jivesters" is also correct. That is what is being portrayed.

The problem with introducing terms like gang and outlaw motorcyclist is that the current use of them did not arise until long after the movie was made and, more recently, both terms have become far more derogatory, politically charged, and with meanings that do not apply to the times and even subjects of the Wild One. --Salty Batter (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, to suggest that "a mob of youths on motorcycles" is in someway some kind of mysterious and uniquely creative slang is hysterical. Are you serious? It would appear to be a entirely fallacious argument, e.g. Variety use slang, therefore everything Variety says is slang.

Please tell me where I used "Varietyspeak". If you cannot show me then I'd the title is another example of dishonest summary like Dennis Bratland used to suggest he was reverting my edit back to anything but his own version, pretending instead he was reverting it back to someone else's!

Mod - yes, a disorganize collective.

Youth - yes, that was what they were acting as.

Motorcycles - yes, they rode motorcycles.

Where is the problem? --Salty Batter (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Calling me "dishonest" in my view that Variety used "Variety Speak" is uncalled for and uncivil. I have treated you with respect and I would appreciate it if you returned the favor. Furthermore, there is nothing "mysterious" about Variety's tendency to use flashy language in their reviews... language which is intended to delight their entertainment industry readership, and which is often not appropriate for an encyclopedia. You disagree, that is fine, but currently there is no concensus for your change to be in the encyclopedia. Without such a concensus, it simply cannot be included in the encyclopedia. It's that simple. Marteau (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Prove it then. Where did I use Varietyspeak?

Isn't making a false and prejudiced accusation of someone uncivil?

I was still writing when you posted, so I'll add this bit here.

If we look at even the Wikipedia definition of the word "gang" it just does not fit because there is no evidence of internal structures or criminal intents nor, I would argue, was there in the historical motorcycle riding subjects of the movie. Influenced, yes, but about, no unless the use of the term outlaw in this context is defined more accurately. --Salty Batter (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I said in my summary "Removing Variety Speak". That meant I believed "mob of youths" was Variety Speak. It's that simple. That said, I'm not investing any more time on this issue, my contribution to the determination of concensus is clear and it stands and I'm done. Marteau (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything you just said is original research. Do you know who says The Wild One is a movie about what we understand to be an outlaw motorcycle club or "gang"? Reliable sources say it, that's who. We are not "introducing" gang or outlaw to the discussion of The Wild One. Expert sources have used the terms for years. The whole argument you are making is anachronistic. You're applying the public relations outlaw MCs began using in the 80s and 90s to rehabilitate their image to a movie made in the early 1950s before any of these battle lines had been clearly drawn. On the academic point of accuracy in language, no "mob" wears matching outfits with their names on their breast. No mob acts in lockstep taking orders from an undisputed leader. That's not what mob means.

If you can cite any expert sources who specifically take issue with the majority of experts who call the BRMC a gang or outlaw motorcycle club, then by all means, cite those sources. It's clear you had to really scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with the obscucre mention in Variety. Did you read any of the links I supplied above? Several of them are sympathetic to the public image of 1% MCs and even they understand that the BRMC is a gang. See [10], [11], and [12] for example. What they take issue with is whether the conflicted, Bryonic rebel caricature of Johnny Strabler and his gang is corresponds to anything like reality. Most sources say that Lee Marvin's Beetles is much more realistic, looking and acting very much like the MCs of the era, such as the Boozefighters.

In short, cite some sources that actually say what you're trying to say. From what I've seen you are putting unsourced original research into the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Marteau, if you really honestly believe "mob of youths" is some kind of unique slang, is English your first language? I don't get it.

If you're critical of Variety, is an "Idiot's Guide" really the best reference we've got? They are kind of lightweight and humorous publications.

Have you ever been in a mob, Dennis? Yes, I would say mobs tend to be led by alpha males. Was Johnny referred to by a title, or was there any other structure to the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club?

The problem with your equation is that motorcycle clubs wearing matching outfits were very much part of the era and before it. AMA or not. --Salty Batter (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see you citing any sources. This is bickering: "Have you ever been in a mob, Dennis?" No useful decisions about the content of this article will be made by asking or answering that kind of question. All we're doing here is asking ourselves what the sources say. Please show us sources that say what you're trying to add to the article. If you don't have the sources, than shelve this issue for now and come back later when you have good sources. What's the rush? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I am with the original 1950s reference given and consider it better represents the facts. It's beyond a joke to suggest "mob of youths" or even jivesters is "Varietyspeak". That's entirely disingenuous suggestions which raise doubts about the motivation or intentions of the author in just the same way your summary and actions did. In fact, I'd say it didn't "raise doubts", I'd say it made them clear and this comment about public relations underlines.

You're clearly applying the public relations police departments and government agencies began using in the 80s and 90s to discredit motorcyclists and any group of individuals they care to tar with the same brush as "gangs".

Have you watched the movie? To cast the BRMC as outlaw motorcycle club as it is understood now is just plain wrong. If you want to clarify the term with contemporary references, then I'd have less of an objection. I went through the references. The term is used differently, e.g. taking a direct quote from the movie "outlaw outfit" which at the time just meant non-AMA sanctioned.

Do you understand that? It does not support your theory.

Others I agree with, e.g. the formative effect of Lee's role and the Beetles. That is a fact.

Johnny/Brando may be an "outlaw", but only on the weekends. If you read contemporary reviews and more academic sources, you'll find he was seen as being too feminine and neurotic. John Wayne, for example, is quoted in 'Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties' (Cohan, Steven) describing him as a “torn T-shirt type” and “trembling”, hinting homophobia. The movie is more about forms of masculinity at the time, a point also made by academics you won't read in blogs or Idiot guides?

What level are we writing at? Some of the motorcycling topics and templates I've been looking at are appalling. They are complete messes. It's like they've been written by kids, police cadets, or people who know nothing about the subject. --Salty Batter (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the BRMC from this 1953 film is an accurate portrayal of an outlaw MC of 2015. Nobody is even saying the BRMC was in any way an accurate portrayal of a real biker gang, or club, or anything, of 1953. What they're saying they were the original Hollywood image of them. Accurate? No. Important? Influential? Immensely. Especially since many real bikers actually imitated Brando's highly inaccurate performance in the years that followed. Weirdly true. So if you want to expand the article on these lines, that's great. But the basic point that this is the original Hollywood outlaw biker gang movie is totally verifiable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Biker? Yes. Outlaw? Only in the context of non-AMA. Gang? Sloppy. It's a cheap pejorative term, lacking in depth and accuracy which does not benefit the topic but appears to be one of your own issues, vis-a-vis your one sided comment re MC PR. It seems like an area you don't know much about but have already chosen a prejudiced position therefore all put together in the order you are pushing it is incorrect and misleading.

It does feature outlaw motorcyclist, the Beetles, but was not about them. Influential? Yes (and mainly the Beetles again). --Salty Batter (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep taunting me that I don't know what I'm talking about, and I keep ignoring your uncivil remarks. I have to ask, if you're such an expert, and I'm so ignorant, how come not one single other editor has found your arguments convincing? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Presumably all 3 of you are in the same Wiki-Gang and you consider your Johnny, and this is your turf.

Forgive me for raising it but one of them tried to suggest "mob of youths" was some unique slang. Where can I get a second opinion on that?

You've all avoided accepting the most obvious observation I've made, that meanings of words change, e.g outlaw between 1950 and, say, post 1980s/90s, and how using is inaccurate and misleading in this context. They're a mob of young hipsters, not an organized criminal gang. --Salty Batter (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's right. We're all full-patch members of the Wild Wikipedia Weasels (www) Virtual Motorcycle Club, and so is every film critic (save one) - NOT. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Either that, or the movie depicts what Hollywood thought a biker gang in 1953 looked like. I guess if they made a movie set in 2015 where they dressed like James Cagney in The Public Enemy, I'd think they were probably hipsters too. But that movie is actually showing us what Hollywood in 1931 thought Prohibition-era gangsters looked like. We don't and change the article The Public Enemy to replace "gangster" with "misunderstood hipster" because gangsters don't dress in those suits with pomade in their hair and carry Tommy guns any more.

I"m starting think Salty is just putting us on with these antics. But you know, if this isn't a joke, then disupte resolution is thataway. Good luck. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Request close}}

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Motorcycles

I read the "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Motorcycles" and it appears to be written by some.

It says, the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club was based on the Boozefighters MC but when I check up other sources, it says Brando's club was portraying the 13 Rebels MC and Lee Marvin’s club was based Boozefighters MC.

What do you guys do when an admittedly lightweight reference is proven to be factually erroneous? --Salty Batter (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't know what the screenwriters actually had in mind, or what the costume designers had in mind. But Wikipedia articles do convey whatever opinions about art and media that are held by respected sources. Darwin Holmstrom and the editors of Motorcyclist are respected sources. I don't even know why this is an issue, because this article makes no mention of the Boozefighters or the 13 Rebels. And I can't find any mention of the Boozefigters or 13 Rebels in the Idiots Guide anyway. What page are you seeing this on?

I think what you're trying to do here is say there is a minority opinion about how The Wild One is interpreted. That's great! We all welcome that. What you haven't done is cite any sources which hold your minority opinion -- that the BRMC was not a "gang" or "outlaw" club. If you can cite a good source for this opinion, I'd be the first to support adding it to the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The actual quote is "One such club, the Booze Fighters, became the model for Johnny's Black Rebels Motorcycle Club in the film The Wild One."

They made two mistakes, Boozefighters is one word and the BRMC were based on the 13 Rebels MC. They may be fine authors elsewhere but Idiot's Guides are not authoritative works.

I would say even Variety was more authoritative when it comes to movie reviews. --Salty Batter (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would trust a substantive review in Variety, but I wouldn't use a tiny 200 word capsule summary against a ton of better sources. And nothing in the Variety review supports your general point. They just use one word that you're overinterpreting.

In the Idiots Guide, you're referring to page 260. Who cares if Boozefighters is one or two words? And again, it's not an error to say the BRMC was based on them. It's an opinion. The majority opinion is that the Boozefithers (and others) inspired the Beetles. It does nothing to to totally undermine the credibility of the source. Here are more sources which say the Wild One is the first outlaw biker film: [13][14][15]... plus

• A Short History of Film, Wheeler Winston Dixon; Gwendolyn Audrey Foster p. 190, " The first of the bikergang melodramas, The Wild One"
• Wild Ones to Ride Again into California Town: Bikers Celebrate 50 Years as Icons, By Billingsley, K. L. | The Washington Times (Washington, DC), July 1, 1997

This could go on. There is copious evidence that on the important issue, the first biker film, the Idiots Guide is 100% consistent with the vast majority of experts. Are there any sources that say no, The Wild One was not the first outlaw biker film? Can you cite even one? Why do I need to cite a dozen sources to disprove a point raised by zero sources? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You are jumping horses here. Now you are saying "first biker film", which is also not true (even if it is written in that lightweight book).

You don't appear to know this subject even to know how wrong you are. We need to use more authoritative sources. These are just stocking filler books. --Salty Batter (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, the first two citations, Holmstrom in the Idiot's Guide, and the AMC Filmsite ref which you keep deleting in spite of it's acceptance at the RSN, assert that The Wild One was the first outlaw biker film, and that it was the first to examine American biker gang violence. I just supplied three links which anyone can read to verify this. Here are quotes from four books and a newspaper article which say the same thing:

• "The first of the bikergang melodramas, The Wild One starred Marlon Brando as Johnny, a renegade motorcyclist who tries to make an impression on Kathie (Mary Murphy) when his gang comes to a small town and eventually starts a riot. Brando's performance as Johnny became almost instantly iconic, along with his insolent dialogue; when Kathie asks Johnny what he's rebelling against, Johnny immediately shoots back, "Whaddya got?" By the late 1960s, numerous studios and independent producers would create an entire series of biker films copying the Brando "rebel" formula, most notably Roger Corman's The Wild Angels (1966), but The Wild One remains the original." A Short History of Film Wheeler Winston Dixon, Gwendolyn Audrey Foster. Rutgers University Press, 2008 p. 190
• "A few years after Hollister came yet another milestone in the development of the modern outlaw clubs. The movie The Wild One was Hollywood’s version of Hollister, and was pivotal in defining the image of outlaw clubs. … The Wild One had an enormous social impact. Motorcyclists across the Western world saw the Hollywood version of an outlaw motorcycle club rebel—the attitude, the clothes, the disrespect for society, the treatment of women, the power." The Brotherhoods: Inside the Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs By Arthur Veno, Ed Gannon Allen & Unwin, 2012 p. 25-26
• "Hollywood cashed in on motorcycle-themed nihilism with its version of events in Hollister in Làszlò Benedek's The Wild One (1954), the granddaddy of all biker films. Marlon Brando's Johnny, a brooding, surly, self-destructive punk in black leather, would prove iconic. While his Black Rebel gang terrorizes [Wrightsville,] we learn that Johnny's What-are-you-rebellingagainst?-Whad'-ya-got? amorphous nihilism is appealing to women, as sweet Kathie Bleeker discovers. It's a point that would not be lost when fascination with the outlaw biker lifestyle burgeoned. … The Wild One, probably more than any other single event, was the catalyst for creating and codifying what would become one of the weirdest nihilist phenomena in American history—the outlaw biker." 6 Motorcycling, Nihilism, and the Price of Cool. Alan R. Pratt in Harley-Davidson and Philosophy: Full-Throttle Aristotle. By Bernard E. Rollin, Carolyn M. Gray, Kerri Mommer, Cynthia Pineo. Open Court, 2006. p. 25
• "The Wild One, starring Marlon Brando in 1953. The movie created the first popular image of the disaffected, existentially challenged biker-as-deviant." Encyclopedia of Gangs. By Louis Kontos, David C. Brotherton. Greenwood Press, 2008
• "1954 movie "The Wild One" with Marlon Brando, which made the outlaw biker an icon on the American pop scene and inspired a booming post-World War II motorcycle culture." Wild Ones to Ride Again into California Town: Bikers Celebrate 50 Years as Icons. Billingsley, K. L. | The Washington Times (Washington, DC), July 1, 1997

You still haven't cited a single source that contradicts any of this. We can easily replace the Dirks and Holmstrom citations with any one of these. It's a slam dunk. We could carpetbomb this with a dozen top quality sources if we wished. What's the point of this discussion? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to raise the bar a bit, Dennis, and find more academic rather popular sources. I am happy enough with the latest version, especially introducing the aspect of the changes of masculine roles in post-war America as portrayed by the three parties; townsfolk, John Wayne-style Beetles, and more metro-sexual (my choice of term) Brando and his cross dressing BRMC. Yes, it's in the references and was part of the contemporary discussion. --Salty Batter (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You've convinced nobody. Please pay attention to the consensus of the other editors here. You haven't provided any good sources for changing "gang" to "club", nor for anything else that you're doing to the article. Stop ignoring consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you started it Dennis and you're off on some trip and, from other comments you have made, part of that trip is some kind of stigmatization of groups of motorcycles as being gangs.

I think your own personal point of view is prejudicing the topic and that under the guise of following some rule or another you are just provoking an unnecessary conflict. Why? What's your beef?

The reference is that the club is called Black Rebel Motorcycle Club not Black Rebel Motorcycle Gang. Topics are supposed to be neutral and objective, aren't they?

The academic references I read, not the guides for idiots, clearly identified the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club as "weekend warrior" types (picking up on stylistic clues that differentiate them from the Beetles) and the Beetles as being more formative and representative of later day outlaw motorcyclists.

Now clearly the introduction of a deeper aspect of the movie, as being about the change in masculine indentities and roles within society is important and has moved the topic along. Are you sure you are not just trying to dumb it down with your "gang" theory.

Whatever any specific reference says, it's still up to us to decide which are the most apt, accurate and descriptive and confident that the portrayal of the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club does not confer what is understood by the terms outlaw motorcycle and gang as they are used today.

Therefore they are being applied inaccurately and misleadingly.

Have you ever even watched the movie or hung out with an outlaw motorcycle club?

I am serious. I am trying to understand where on earth you are coming from. --Salty Batter (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not going to take the bait. Please find an appropriate forum to address personal issues.

It's weird that my "own personal point of view" seems to be shared by a dozen high-quality sources. How many sources must I cite in order to demonstrate that this is not merely my "own personal point of view"? Have you asked yourself why you have still failed to convince on single person of anything? All because my own personal point of view is so all-powerful? Is that plausible?

Who is Marjolein Maassen? Is her paper for an undergraduate or graduate class? It doesn't seem to have been published in any journal.

The book by Steven Cohan seems to be something of actual substance. You could write a new section on how Cohan takes a contrary view to the majority of experts. How does Cohan know how Johnny Strabler spends his week? There's nothing in the film that tells us. Anyway, Camille Paglia has a similar sex-based interpretation of The Wild One. The opinions of Paglia and Cohan could be used to show a minority view of the movie. The essay Wikipedia:Fringe theories elaborates on the subject of mainstream, minority, and fringe theories.

But the main thrust of the article still has to reflect the broader consensus. Wheeler Winston Dixon, Gwendolyn Audrey Foster, Bernard Rollin and many others I could list (if it would make any difference -- would it?) are rather obviously subject matter experts, and secondary sources are the preferred sources for Wikipedia. Primary sources, like unpublished academic papers are usually avoided. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Request close}}

AMC Filmsite

Has been brought up twice at RSN and found acceptable (archive 78archive 121). Is there a special reason why is not acceptable here? — Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any mention in the second. I don't see any discussion in the first.

One individual says it has a "publisher" but that wrong. It's a cable TV channel and it's being used for advertizing. (The channel used to specialize in classic movies.

The blog itself states it is "authored, edited, and managed" by one individual Tim Dirks who does not even have a Wikipedia page about him, so I guess he is non-notable. Apparently he"became famous" as a Rotten Tomatoes critic. In short, it's a personal website.

True or false? --Salty Batter (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In the thread above I have given a total of 8 high-quality sources which could replace the Dirks citation. Those 8 were easy to find; I could cite many more. The point is moot. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed and/or narrowed RSN links for everyone's reading pleasure. - Brianhe (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, Filmsite.org is a Wikipedia article. Which has some interesting commentary on its quality from such notables as Roger Ebert. — Brianhe (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Inconclusive. One says "seems RS for the claims it makes", the other makes a false claim. Neither address that its just one guy who used write onRotten Tomatoes.

Anyway, I changed the intro to a compromise which is fair, accurate and more informed with academic level references. No Idiots. --Salty Batter (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Idiots Guide is an excellent source, but we can do without it here. Your other changes contradict numerous sources I've cited above. Please stop this until you have succeed in convincing anyone you're made a valid point. The AMC ref has won support from other editors at the RSN noticeboard. That's good enough, and many, many other very good sources agree with it. Come back when you can cite a good source that contradicts anything in the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you think the "Idiots Guide is an excellent source" is deeply concerning and raises question about your judgement Dennis.

It's a lightweight and comedic work. You don't appear tp be able to understand what I am explaining to you about the changes in the meanings of such words as outlaw and gang and, given your obvious prejudices, how inaccurate and misleading they are in this context.

Let's base this root in reality for one moment, I will explain to you why once you have answered.

Have you watched the movie, had any direct experience of motorcycle clubs, and do you really believe the BRMC accurately represents them or what a biker gang might be? Thank you. --Salty Batter (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Salty, you are making appeals towards what you and other editors know or do not know personally. That is contrary to the principles of the encyclopedia, you are asking us to perform and rely on original research and that's completely inappropriate. What matters is not our personal opinions, what matters is verifiablity. Marteau (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

How can you edit something if you don't know anything about it? How can you tell which references are the most accurate and carry the most weight?

For example anyone who knows anything about the subject know "outlaw" had a different meaning in 1950. The page on the topic says so. We need to clarify the terms. --Salty Batter (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC) {{Request close}}

Latest edit by Salty Batter

Multiple issues with Salty's latest edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wild_One&diff=644129810&oldid=643910800 No concensus for wholesale changing of "gang" to "club". You cite "Men: Masculinity" with no page numbers for verification, and give it undue weight by putting it in the lead paragraph. Putting something so prominently in the lead paragraph, before so many other aspects that make the movie notable, gives it great and I would say inappropriate weight. Mention elsewhere might be appropriate, but in the first paragraph? You add text about the AMA, but the cite which immediately follows it says nothing about the AMA. There are many issues with that edit, and being as you are still learning Wikipedia policies and protocols, it would be best if you did your edits one issue at a time, and not include many many issues in one edit. I'm completely reverting the edit. Marteau (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The 'Influence on popular culture' section should probably get a simpler name, like 'Influence'. We can then expand it to give details about a number of points:

• The mainstream idea that it was the original outlaw biker film
• The mainstream idea that it was the original Hollywood portrait of outlaw motorcycle gang violence, helping to create the public perception of outlaw MCs. Most sources agree this perception is not very accurate, especially in the 1950s.
• The lesser known theory that the film changed ideas about masculinity, including Cohn, Paglia. Paul D'Orleans thinks the BRMC's outfits are more reminiscent of a rough trade scene (Choppers The Real Story, 2014).

The third point is fine to cover as far as minor diverse theories. The first two points are copiously sourced and represent the consensus of large numbers of experts, per the citations I've given above, and so these two points should remain in the lead. Moving this stuff into the body of the article, and expanding it this way conforms with MOS:LEAD and allows us to give proportionate coverage of minority viewpoints.

We still would need to resolve Marteau's questions above with regard to Cohn. I'd like to know more specifically what it says. And I'd like answers to my questions about Marjolein Maassen; this is a student paper and I don't think it's a reliable source.

I think any further attempts to change "gang" to "club", which some four different editors have agreed are not correct, should be referred to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for further action. Before changing club to gang again, please provide enough evidence to contradict the numerous sources already quoted, and then wait for other editors to signal their agreement. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

To further address the question of changing "gang" go "club" in the article, Salty Batter has cited Marjolein Maassen's college paper as a superior source to the others we've seen, because it's "academic". Massen wrote: "...The Wild One, is about a motorcycle gang called the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club (B.R.M.C). They are led by Johnny Strabler (Brando) and make a stop in a small town to have some 'fun' with the locals. While there, Johnny develops a crush on Kathie, the daughter of the town's only cop. Then 'The Beetles', a rival motorcycle gang, show up in the same town and Johnny gets into a fight with their leader, Chino. This, together with other antics the gangs get up to, brings chaos and anxiety to the normally quiet town. … Even the name of Johnny's gang confirms it: these guys are rebels." So we're supposed to reject all our other sources on the question of what the most important influences of the film were, yet ignore Maassen when she insists that the Black Rebels are indeed a gang.

Maassen also wrote, "One of the most important sources I will use in my research of masculinity is Steven Cohan's Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties." So Cohan, the other "academic" source that trumps all the others, said nothing to teach Maassen to say "club" instead of "gang"?

Maassen seems to be the source of the claim that Stabler is only an outlaw on weekends, from the offhand remark, "On weekends we go out and have a ball". From this, she concludes that Stabler has a job, and even a house! Couldn't there be many other explanations for this remark? Maybe his fellow gang members are only available on weekends. Maybe he's a student. Maybe he only wishes to party when the nightlife is in full swing. And so on. These appear to be poor sources that are taking flights of fancy, speculating when there are no facts to justify it. But if we are to trust Maassen, then the Black Rebels are definitely a gang. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You have to make an effort to read the more academic references. Incidentally, one quotes Brando saying the one of the aims of the movie was to explore the psychology of the hipster, although he felt it failed to do so well.

You got to allow it to develop beyond the superficial and "idiotic" references.

You're obviously pushing your own agenda regarding this biker gang issue you've got Dennis? Have you seen the movie? It's laughable if you think that's a biker gang. Let's use more neutral, objective language. We know they are a club. There's nothing going on to suggest they are a "gang". --Salty Batter (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your own source says emphatically that they're a gang. And yes, I've seen the Wild One. Everybody has seen the Wild One. That's like asking if you've seen It's a Wonderful Life. It's a classic old movie that's been shown a million times on TV and cable. Have you actually watched the original trailer? In the text, it says the movie is "the story of a gang of hot-riding hotheads". The trailer text also says they are "jazzed up hoodlums."

Your own source says they're a gang. Your own movie says they're a gang. How can we reason with you? Are there any hypothetical circumstances where you would stop? For example, is there some number of sources that could be used convince you? Say 12 books? Or 20? Would any number of editors be able to make you stop? If a fourth editor said you were wrong, would that editor also be a member of a conspiracy against you? What about a fifth editor? A tenth? Is there anything that can be said here on this talk page to make you stop reverting the same changes? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, Salty simply restores his contested edits, without consensus, and completely ignores the points brought up here and the issues we have with these edits. Furthermore, he continues his appeals towards what he individually knows to be true (what "we know" as he phrases it) and then goes on to say "There's nothing going on to suggest they are a "gang"" which is somewhat stunning, because there have been numerous sources cited on this page saying they are a "gang". But to him, there's "nothing". It's become ludicrous at this point. Salty's behavior on this issue shows there is no reasoning with him on this issue, not only has he no respect for any of the citations we have demonstrated, but he has absolutely no respect for the process of arriving at and respecting consensus. Marteau (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Every review I could read in Rotten Tomatoes calls it a gang (except for one that doesn't call it a gang or a club). So do AMC, The New York Times review, and so on and so on. Note: The Cheyenne Social Club isn't a club, and neither are the Black Rebels Motorcycle Club and the Hells Angels Motorcycle "Club". A "sanitary engineer" is still a garbage collector. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"AMC" we've discussed. It's actually a one man website, called Filmsite, of about 200 film reviews. The author is non-notable.

NYT in 1953 first refers to the BRMC as a "swarm of youthful motorcyclists" and then, referring to it, uses "this gang". Not 'a' gang. Is Marteau going to step forward and claim this is some kind of unique and obscure slang like "mob"?

You are deliberately missing my point, and that is regarding the changing meaning of the word "gang". In at least Dennis's, possibly others, this appears to be a some kind of "point of view" agenda.

If we look at Wikipedia's own page on gangs, we find,

"the word gang ... later underwent pejoration. In current usage, it typically denotes a criminal organization or else a criminal affiliation."

"Cottrell-Boyce, writing in the Youth Justice journal, argues that gangs have been constructed as a "suitable enemy" by politicians and the media, obscuring the wider, structural roots of youth violence."

Like it or not, the name of this group is Black Rebel Motorcycle Club. Referring to it as Club is merely consistent with its name.

If you want to say, "which many people see as a gang", then fine. But they're not outlaw motorcyclists or a gang as per the modern, pejorative, criminalized usage. I think first film featuring outlaw motorcyclists is fine, but clearly referring to the Beetles Club. --Salty Batter (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the second of the two sources Salty Batter is citing, Masked Men by Steven Cohan, I've now got a copy here in front of me and I can say that there is next to nothing in this book to support the changes under discussion. The preview you see at Google Books is everything Cohan has to say about The Wild One: "For most writers on the fifties, the moment from his films that summarizes Brando's impact on the young rebel star challenging traditional masculinity occurs in The Wild One when Kathie (Mary Murphy) asks Johnny (Brando) what he is rebelling against: "What have you got?" he replies. Far more telling to me is her earlier comment that Johnny resembles her father: "He's a fake—like you." Back on page 243 Cohan says Brando often played characters much older than himself, mentioning The Wild One along with A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront. That's all there is. Everything else in the book, everything in the chapter on Brando, is about other films, not The Wild One. Cohan says other Brando films are a "study in changing masculine roles"; he barely mentions The Wild One in passing. Cohan says nothing about gang vs club. Nothing in Cohan mentions the AMA or what "outlaw" means.

For the sake of accuracy, we should note that Brando was 28 or 29 when The Wild One was filmed; his character is frequently called a "boy", and appears to be closer to a teenager than a 30 year old, so Cohan shouldn't have included this as example of Brando playing older characters. Another notable blunder: it was Mildred (Peggy Maley), not Kathie, who asks Brando the famous question "What are you rebelling against?" quoted above.

I'll stop here; I think we've belabored this issue enough. There's nothing to see here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The second reference I used was 'Wild Ones: Masculinity in classical Hollywood youth cinema of the 1950s' by Marjolein Maassen, so all this talk about Cohan is irrelevant and misleading.

Apart from making an erroneous accusation, you clearly don't understand how academics develop ideas. --Salty Batter (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Request close}}

Point of View pushing: clubs versus gangs

Where is the right venue for me to raise this Point of View issue regarding the use of the word club versus the pejorative gang?

I don't just mean here. Dennis is now exporting this issue to other topics.

There are clearly people with an over exaggerated personal agenda about it and I'd like it clarified. --Salty Batter (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC) {{Request close}}

Deliberately provocative reverting

Look, I've added some perfectly good new content with support references.

I appreciate you want to grind your axe calling the clubs gangs, and cant admit I am making a fair point over the changes in the meaning of such words as outlaws referring to motorcycles (as referenced) or the pejoration of the word gang (as per the topic page), but there's no need to keep reverting all of it. It's becoming irrational and clearly just deliberately provocative. --Salty Batter (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are against consensus. It's that simple. You are the ONLY editor who wishes to remove "gang" and substitute "club". As in, the ONLY one. You obviously have no respect for the process of arriving at and respecting consensus and that makes your edits disruptive and it needs to stop. Marteau (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, you simply restored your contested edits against concensus. What's more, you included "Please wait for the discussion at 'Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard'," in your edit summary. Telling all other editors to wait, meanwhile, for you, it's fine to simply restore contested edits. Did it occur to you that that might be good advice for you yourself to take? That you might want to wait before re-re-re-re-re-re-reverting your contested edits? The edits that got you referred to the edit war notice board in the first place? Marteau (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Request close}}

Controversies

The article states that "In the United Kingdom, the film was banned by the British Board of Film Censors for fourteen years."

I am not sure that this is correct: it was simply not given a certificate. It was shown in the UK, but only to private audiences. For example, it was shown sometime during 1958, as I recall, to students at the Northern Polytechnic, Holloway Road, London. Tony (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In what sense is that not banned? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

We should use verbiage used by a reliable source, and the source does not say it is "banned" Marteau (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

How about "British Board of Film Censors refused to approve for public viewing"? Brianhe (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The British Board of Film itself says "The film was banned by the BBFC upon its release here and remained so (except for screenings in film societies where local councils overturned the BBFC’s decision) until 1967 when it was released with an X certificate (suitable for 16 year olds and above). The initial ban was prompted mostly by a fear that the very real problem of burgeoning juvenile delinquency," So yes, when a film wasn't certified it can still be shown if various hoops are jumped through, but the ones who banned it call it a "ban". On the impact of this ban, in The Black Leather Jacket (2008) Mick Farren wrote, "I'd also seen stills of Marlon Brando in The Wild One, and, from the perspective of time, he was as far as it went. (Marlon was also legislated against. The Wild One remained banned in the UK until 1967, presumably to deter young boys like me from emulating Brando's character. It didn't work; it only made me all the more eager.)" So there's evidence that few actually saw the film, and instead it's influence grew because of the legend surrounding what everyone was supposedly missing.

Anyway, I'm just saying we should be afraid to say "banned". I'm all in favor of expanding the description of this film in UK society; it clearly had a social influence that was not exactly the same as the US. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The BBFC has no power to ban a film. The final arbiter of what is or is not shown in UK cinemas is the Local Authority which licenses the cinema. As Local Authorities can't be bothered to set up watch committees to certify every film, they normally simply accept the BBFC rating. But they can, if they wish, change the BBFC rating, or ban a film entirely or allow a film not granted a certificate by the BBFC to be shown. This has happened on numerous occasions, for example, Monty Python's Life of Brian, given an 'AA' rating by the BBFC, was banned in many areas. The Wild One was given local certification in some areas of the UK and shown to the public, most famously in Cambridge where Leslie Halliwell (of Film Guide fame) was managing the Rex Cinema and got the local authority to view the film and give it a local 'X' certificate. These were normal public screenings, not film societies or clubs (for which no certificate is required). So, the film was seen in some areas of the UK, to no great business apparently. Ambak51 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Marlon Brando - The Wild One (Madame Tussaud).JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Who exactly are "The Beetles" ?

"We missed you! The Beetles missed you!" ~ Chino

When Chino mentions "The Beetles", the camera seems to pan to the females hanging out with his "club". Doesn't this seem to indicate that the girls in the "club" are "the beetles" ? ( Like bugs, like things crawling all over you, like nuisances / hangers on ? Women aren't treated very kindly by the bikers in the film. )

We never see the rival club's name on their attire, like the B.R.M.C., and "the beetles" - memory a little fuzzy on this part - are only mentioned once in the whole film, in the above quote.

Soooo ... has everybody, including The Beatles, gotten it wrong over all these years? 75.104.182.200 (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"What are you rebelling against? - Whaddaya got?" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect What are you rebelling against? - Whaddaya got? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7 § What are you rebelling against? - Whaddaya got? until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)