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

Film: Filmmaking 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 This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force. Photography: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography 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.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Schwede66 talk 17:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a Kubrick stare

• ... that Donald Trump's mugshot has been described as a Kubrick stare?

• Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/donald-trump-mugshot-stanley-kubrick/

• ALT1: ... that a Kubrick stare can break the fourth wall? Source: https://journals.openedition.org/essais/646
• ALT2: ... that the Kubrick stare is one of "cinema's most recognizable shots"? Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/donald-trump-mugshot-stanley-kubrick/
• ALT3: ... that a Kubrick stare can be "invasive" and "troubling"? Source: https://journals.openedition.org/essais/646
• Reviewed: Isabella Correa
• Comment: I'm eschewing the McDowell image as it is too closely cropped and eliminates the forehead, which has been mentioned as an element of the Kubrick stare. I really desire this to be an image hook (as does the subject of the photo), so I'm fine with a set-builder pushing this far back or anything similar.

Created by Bremps (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

Bremps... 10:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• QPQ is done, article is new enough, article is long enough. WP:EARWIG says "Violation Unlikely". Personally I would not use the hook mentioning Trump's mug shot, because it would be a bit strange to mention it but then show an entirely different photograph. ALT3 is the one I think is best because it matches the photograph the most. Overall, good to go for ALT3. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that Stanley Kubrick's 96th birthday is coming up on July 26. If it does not compromise the image hook, could we have the hook run on that date? Thanks. Bremps... 19:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objections from me! Di (they-them) (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bremps and Di (they-them): Interesting article, I learned something. I checked it out and it is ready to promote. Bruxton (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kubrick stare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Bremps (talk · contribs) 17:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) 02:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Bremps. I see your comment about being busy in July/August, but it's not often I see a GA nom that's both personally interesting and which I feel confident about reviewing, so I snagged it. I'll use your note to take my time reviewing it, will ping you when I'm done, and won't expect a response until you're around more. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhododendrites My schedule appears to be lighter than I expected. Feel free to start reviewing now, and thank you for taking this nomination. Bremps... 03:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bremps: Got it. Thanks. I'm headed to a conference tomorrow, so while I may get to some of it on the train, more likely I'll follow up next week sometime. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even the first sentence "insane or unstable characters". Mental health stigma is a problem, then featuring this article with the caption "Did you know that a Kubrick stare [...] can be 'invasive' and 'troubling'" on the front page seems inappropriate in its given state I think.

Attributing words of hostility to "insane/unstable" people (i.o.w. people with a mental disorder) in such a high profile way is not ok. It is never ok I think, but featuring it on the front page makes it look like wikipedia condones this kind of discrimination. Ybllaw (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the technique is to portray characters as mentally unstable in a troubling or scary way. While I agree that the language can be stigmatizing to the mentally ill, cinema and fiction in general unfortunately often carry that stereotype. The first film to use the technique was Psycho which in hindsight kicked off a lot of the ableist stereotypes in horror. Despite the issue of ableism, I don't think it would be a good idea to change the article to be more sensitive; the article portrays the subject as what it is and it's not our job to censor or change what the stare represents. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It unfortunately is" is not answering my criticism, it is agreeing with it.

I am not calling for censorship, I however, find it hard to believe that this article isn't biased in its current state. Is there a sufficient diversity of sources? Is this "kubrick stare" maybe too little known to be actually worth an article to begin with if there is so little coverage of it? Ybllaw (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not "little coverage of it", the article has 14 sources and there are undoubtedly more considering the subject is a well-established pop-culture phenomenon. It is currently a Good Article Nominee. As far as bias goes, Wikipedia covers what sources say. When we say that Wikipedia is "neutral", it means neutral coverage, not necessarily neutral content. Any bias in the article (such as ableist language) is the result of the larger cultural coverage of the subject and how it is commonly viewed, not this article itself. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those sources written by medical professionals? Given that it would take a medical professional to claim "convey that a character has become dangerously mentally unstable". From looking at a few of those sources, they are written by professors with a degree in language, "film critics" and writers. 14 sources is not a lot, given that there are articles with over 100 sources. Even less so if those sources use words their credentials do not make them an expert about. Ybllaw (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I still don't get though, regardless of the state of this article, is why it was featured as a did-you-know article in its current state and with the stigmatizing message of "this look can be troubling". Ybllaw (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because sources describe the look as troubling and that is the intended purpose of the look in cinematography. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]