Talk:Nighthawks (Hopper)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saa011.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped patrons[edit]

This bit of the intro paragraph strikes me as odd:

If one looks closely, it becomes apparent that there is no way out of the bar area, as the three walls of the counter form a triangle which traps the attendant. It is also notable that the diner has no visible door leading to the outside, which illustrates the idea of confinement and entrapment. Hopper denied that he had intended to communicate this in Nighthawks, ...

Is this based on any citation? Could it be that we just can't see the door because it's not in the frame? — Loadmaster 01:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says "...no visable...". Besides, pretty much any anylization is speculation, esp. when Hopper is involved. He didn't help us out too much! User:Oystermind
I'd need to find the actual reference but it exists. IIRC, someone (I don't remember who, but he was referenced by name in the source) asked Hopper about the meaning behind the lack of doors, he answered with embarrassed "Oh, no. I forgot it again, didn't I?" 83.14.232.226 (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a door, and even if the door shown is to the kitchen or restrooms or such, the unseen area to the right is accessible to everyone. EllenCT (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It is sharply outlined by the fact that the man with his back to us appears more lonely because of the couple sitting next to him." In correct, the couple are sitting across from him.

Trivia[edit]

Does the pop culture section of this article seem bloated to anyone else? --sparkitTALK 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Seperate or trim, I say Oystermind 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ne'ermind. I did it. Oystermind 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix reference?[edit]

I've stuck a "citation needed" on the claim that people read a woman in a red dress in The Matrix as a reference to the painting, because I haven't been able to find a single reference to such a reading on the Web or on USENET. —Eric S. Smith (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Quest III reference?[edit]

Another possible pop culture reference could be the Monolith Burger scene in the computer adventure game Space Quest III, unfortunately I don't have a link to an image of the exact scene in the game but I do recall it looks very similar and may be a nod to the painting. -- Ϫ 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beaks?[edit]

"The couple's noses resemble beaks, perhaps a reference to the title"

Am I the only one not seeing this? Their noses look like normal human noses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.78.111 (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say, and I've added a couple of cn tags to what looks like original research, i.e. one editor's personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...unreferenced?[edit]

I'm not sure how a link to the video isn't a valid reference. Maybe there's nothing written out, but the video's quite clearly a reference to the painting. Drjayphd (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you, or I, or anybody else, consider "quite clear" is beside the point. And no, a link to the video is not enough. I still argue that "inspired by" or "influenced by" is not enough to make it relevant. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, now it's a moot point. You'd think it'd be easier to find an actual citation.. Drjayphd (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Literature[edit]

The following was recently added to the Literature subsection, but I cannot make sense of it:

A book L' arrière-saison from Philippe Besson in French <ref>{{ Citation editor-last = Besson | editor-link = Philippe Besson | title = L' arrière-saison | year = 2002 | place = Paris | publisher = Julliard | isbn = 2260016103 | pages = 191 }} </ref>

Can someone who knows French please determine if this is relevant and notable? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am, in fact, not French but nevertheless I am reading this book at the moment and yes, it tells a possible story around the characters in the painting. I would therefore consider it a relevant and notable reference to the painting. Besides, it is definitely very much worth reading... Hope to have been of help --85.178.86.3 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Sorry it took me so long to respond. A translation of the title and more details about the story would help, though. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book is indeed relevant and relates a meeting between an estranged couple. Arriere-saison means the end of autumn or beginning of winter, suggesting bleakness. It can also mean the beginning of old age.Frenchflicfan (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary Colors"[edit]

There's a tribute in the film "Primary Colors," which had achieved some significant fame. The setting takes place late at night in a doughnut shop with the presidential candidate. Does this meet the worthiness standard? --Thatnewguy (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop background in OS X[edit]

This rather marvelous painting is included as one of the rotating backgrounds in the 'Art' carousel in the Desktop preferences of OS X. Maybe worthy of note? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.152.54 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Composition[edit]

As it appears I keep getting deleted, I'll keep it short this time. I feel the article (and more wiki articles on paintings, in general) should have a section analyzing the composition of the painting against pre-established ( artistic conventions. Conventions that Hopper, as an academic artist (as well as anyone who's taken an art history class), would be aware of and understand their symbolic value in terms of visual art as a medium of communication (something else Hopper would have learned and implemented). These conventions would have to be cited and illustrated (through examples in other known art -- perhaps limiting it to only items already found on the Commons? To keep people from adding their own work?), not opinions. Each example of convention would of course be open to editing, and removal, if they're determined to be unfounded or inaccurate. I already listed a few examples found in this particular painting (the simple composition and visual elements make it easier to compare against), but they got deleted so I figured I'd just ask beforehand this time.

As to the user who keeps deleting things, I've replied to your message on my talk page (as you requested people don't write on yours about your actions), addressing why I think your edit was baseless. I ask you read and respond before you take any more actions. mrdeadhead (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on composition could be added to an article as long as they are reliably sourced and verifiable. Basically, what that means is if you find a book or academic journal that analyzes the composition, that material can be added. If you or any other editor is doing the analysis, that amounts to your opinion and it would not be acceptable here. You can't cite a convention and then make your own assessment, because that is original research. You need a reliable source that makes the analysis. If someone wants to read your 2,000+ word essay on the composition of Nighthawks, the can always find it here. As far as I can tell, nowhere in that essay did you pose a question or make a statement as to how to improve this article. That is why I removed it from the talk page, per WP:Forum. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite frankly the entire description section needs serious work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nighthawks by Edward Hopper 1942.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Nighthawks by Edward Hopper 1942.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 30, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-08-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nighthawks
Nighthawks is an oil painting on canvas completed by the American artist Edward Hopper in 1942. It portrays people in a downtown diner late at night. The painting is held by the Art Institute of Chicago, which purchased it within months of its completion. The painting has frequently been referenced in American popular culture, and several writers have searched for its real-life inspiration.Painting: Edward Hopper
Archive – More featured pictures...

Sharp corner?[edit]

Is there a secondary source stating that the intersection is sharp as opposed to right-angled? It looks right-angled to me. In any case, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to judge whether it is right-angled or sharp-angled. Thisisnotatest (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nighthawks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critical heritage[edit]

There should be some comments by art experts that explain the exceptional popularity of this work. Valetude (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Art Institute of Chicago has this but we need at least a few varied critiques to support a section on them. EllenCT (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WD infobox[edit]

A WD infobox doesn't add any value to an article which already has a manual infobox. It doesn't discriminate between relevant and irrelevant info (it includes all info which is relevant in any article, not this specific article) and it's more awkward and backwards in its control of relevant and irrelevant info (it's far more natural to include the info you want than to actively exclude the info you don't want). The WD box has value when you put an article together very quickly and feel too lazy to fill out an infobox, but since a manual box already exists here this is a non-issue for this article. In short - the manual infobox is superior when counting all factors that are relevant here, and there is no reason to remove it. Smetanahue (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your opinion, but it is not rooted in fact nor is there policy backing up that particular rationale to justify reverting. There are clear benefits to Wikidata-assisted infoboxes, some of which include having data updated by a greater set of constituents and maintaining integrity, consistency and accuracy across all the Wikimedia projects. There are clearly flags and options in the template one can set to address the "discriminate" issue you raise, even though I think it is a weak one at best. Rather than fight the evolution of the infobox, how about seeing it as the fulfillment of our long term vision of information sharing and integrity across our wiki ecosystem, just like when we moved images to a central store in Commons circa 2004. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy for abolishing manual infoboxes either. The fact they haven't been mass deleted is enough to prove that they're still considered useful, and not some evolutionary left-behinds. I also have a very hard time believing that there are more people engaged in Wikidata than in the national editions of Wikipedia - and even if true, the benefits only apply to cases where editors are too lazy to fill out a manual infobox (i.e. not here). The manual boxes are simpler, more flexible and look better aesthetically. Removing them to add WD boxes is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and creates actual problems whether you think they're small or not. Smetanahue (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Fuzheado and Mike Peel here. Nothing besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT is offered as a reason for edit warring. Gamaliel (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly going to stay out of this, but: if there are any improvements that can be made to the wikidata version of the infobox to make it look nicer / add more info from Wikidata / etc., then I'm happy to do so. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel: Multiple arguments have been provided for why a manual infobox has benefits over a WD infobox. I responded to Fuzheado's arguments above, so please take my counter-arguments seriously too. Smetanahue (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with all of these. Manual infoboxes are not simpler, they require extensive work from the editor, while wikidata infoboxes require a single line of code. They are not more flexibile, Wikidata infoboxes can be customized as the editor sees fit. Aesthetically? It's a damn box. Gamaliel (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we're not discussing the effort of initially filling out a manual infobox here, since that work already has been done. And the fact that WD boxes can be customized doesn't mean that they're equally as flexible as manual boxes. The procedure of customizing a WD box is clearly more laborious, not only because it's a backward way of working, where you exclude the info you don't want instead of including the info you want. For example, an infobox on Wikipedia is a summary of the articles, comparable to the lead section, so you don't need to add sources to it, since you already have sources in the article. On Wikidata however, if you want it to be serious, you need to add a source for every parameter you add. Thus, the WD box only has a benefit if no one has bothered to already create a manual box - and if someone already has bothered to fill out the info on WD, which won't always be the case. To articles that already have a manual infobox there is no benefit whatsoever. So feel free to add WD boxes to articles that don't have any infobox, but never use them to replace manual infoboxes. Smetanahue (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smetanahue: I was trying to stay out of this ... but bear in mind the work involved with maintaining the manual infobox over the next decade or so - we can do that in one place that then automatically updates the infoboxes (and the lists/other places that use the same information), or we can continue to duplicate that effort across multiple pages. If this artwork changes collection, how many edits would we need to update its location? Yes, there is the shortcut that if a fact is referenced in the article, then we can assume that reference in the infobox here - but that doesn't scale across the wikimedia projects unless you can clearly link the fact with the reference, as Wikidata does. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There is a clear additional benefit to keeping infobox information current and accurate through automatic updating. How many paintings are there in the world? Will Smetanahue "bother" to manually update all of those articles? Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is again an appeal to laziness. This is fine for more obscure paintings with stub articles, where I don't oppose the use of WD infoboxes. But for a major, really famous painting - the kind of painting with articles in many languages - that's not really an issue. When such a painting changes collection it's noticed in the media worldwide. You're taking arguments that only apply to obscure paintings that get minimal attention, and apply this to all paintings. Flexibility is still the best option, and to get rid of manual infoboxes is just to get rid of flexibility. Smetanahue (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel: I don't see how that makes any sense. Why would I be more inclined to update info on Wikidata than on Wikipedia? It's still the same update that someone has to bother about. Just with more work if manual infoboxes are banned, if you want the article to make a distinction between relevant and irrelevant info. Smetanahue (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be faulty reasoning at work here. The idea seems to be that if we only outsource the work to another platform, then it will be done automatically so we don't have to do it, and that outweighs any negative aspect of the outsourcing. This is clearly not the case. It's still the same editors who will have to do the work, plus the additional clean-up work with exclusion parameters for unencyclopedic info - which in many cases won't even be done, so we just end up with ugly and unencyclopedic articles, without having gained anything. Smetanahue (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not all about you and your preferences. Cross-project collaboration allows any editor from any project, including editors who never set foot on English Wikipedia, to update the metadata and any project can take advantage of it. Everyone gains. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This does not apply here, which I have explained many times now and it's becoming tiresome. The manual infobox already exists, so even with your premise about cross-project collaboration, nothing is gained from using the WD box here. You have now removed the manual infobox six times and replaced it with the WD infobox. Not a single of these times have you cared to clean it up and remove the unencyclopedic content. This is not a good track record for the thesis that the WD infobox is equal in quality to the manual infobox. Smetanahue (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did the clean-up now, but couldn't figure out how to suppress the website parameter. Otherwise it should now be on the level of a manual infobox, except for the links to Wikidata. If the painting is moved to a different location it will still have to be updated manually, since the WD infobox didn't include the city in the location parameter, so I had to add that one manually. Smetanahue (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Nothing is gained"? You just aren't listening. Nor have you explained what you mean by "remove the unencyclopedic content". Gamaliel (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shel Silverstein[edit]

This painting and Sliverstein's song Rosalie's Good Eats Cafe always remind me of each other. AMCKen (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Pop Culture - Television Addition[edit]

Hi, I am a new user, please be nice. In discussion with Nikkimaria on their talk page I was directed here. I have been attempting to add a pop culture reference for a specific TV Show called Dead Like Me, with episode titled 'Nighthawks'. Unfortunately, there is a lack of appropriate text based sources on the internet. This being the case, I had hoped to enrich the information associated with this artwork. Problem I have, is in fact that same lack of sources. Due to verifiability it appears that the source media (video) cannot be a source in this instance.

What I was hoping to understand, based on the resources referred to on Nikkimaria's talk page, and the recent page edits, if my page edits could be re-instated in some form. My edits appear to be above and beyond what has been provided for some other pop culture references, namely the "That 70s Show" reference. If my edits cannot remain in some form, then should the pop culture references be cleaned, given the clear influence the artwork has had on the many and varied pop culture and other forms of artwork? This same talk page refers to the same as does the important message in the pop culture section.

Thanks. 58.161.232.18 (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a couple of entries, include That 70s Show. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what makes the That 70s Show reveference not make the cut for the page when it seems to be the same sort of scene athe other entries for TV shows. What is the difference? Frohike14 (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this painting was referenced in the 2014 film "the equalizer".[edit]

if anyone wants to add that, that would be great. The scene where Mccall kills a man in a resturaunt with a book — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:8DB7:AF00:DC5E:3C8B:62C7:E0C (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 August 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Good policy-based arguments on both sides, and neither appears to have won the will of discussion participants. Right now, the Disambiguation page redirect seems to be the compromise, but this should be tried again if anything changes or if anyone believes they have consensus on their side.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nighthawks (painting) → Nighthawks – per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (for the plural only). The article on the painting was at the undisambiguated title from its creation unit this undiscussed move a couple of years ago with the comment "Nighthawks are animals". However, the painting article receives nearly 10 times more pageviews than the animal article. —  AjaxSmack  19:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • NB these pageview stats.
  • Support Per Wikipedia:PLURALPT -- clear primary topic for usage of the plural use of the term. It doesn't benefit the readers who are clearly looking for this one to first navigate the disambiguation page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Nighthawks (1981 film) does get 5,143 views[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia has a preference to redirect plurals to the singular or to a disambiguation page. Wikipedia does not usually use the plural to distinguish between topics, even if there is a clear primary topic for the plural. For example Cars redirects to car, and not to Cars (film). Wikipedia:PLURALPT does not suggest that if a primary topic can sit at the plural, that it should do so. It merely states that a primary topic can sit at the plural. I am unconvinced that someone who types in "Nighthawks" in the Wikipedia search box, or who searches for "Nighthawks" on Google, is overwhelming more likely to be interested in this painting than in the bird, or any of the other topics listed on the disambiguation page. Hence, I strongly oppose this move, and believe that Nighthawks should continue to point to the disambiguation page. LK (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'd be open to Nighthawks going to the disambiguation instead of straight to the bird, but making it the WP:PLURALPT seems a little much. It's just a single artwork.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Nearly 90% of pageviews makes the painting article the primarytopic by usage, and certainly establishes a separate pluralpt. As one of the iconic artworks of the 20th century, it would be primary by significance as well. The undiscussed move should be reverted. Dohn joe (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reversion of the undiscussed move, per nom. Statistics show the very well-known painting is undoubtedly what most readers are searching for and expect to find when they type "Nighthawks". Station1 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This or redirect to nighthawk. My only strong preference is that we not force more people than necessary through a dab page. Srnec (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per above its probably safest to disambiguate which the nom changed the plural redirect to already. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's buried on the long dab page for Nighthawk, making things even more difficult for readers than when it was in the hatnote for the bird. Station1 (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved it up to the top. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, although 'Nighthawks' should redirect to the bird as primary, the present disamb. page handles the topic well. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bar?[edit]

I was struck by the non-standard use of the terms "bar" and "bartender" in this article. I don't see a source citation for these terms. Is there some reason we use them in this way? GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nighthawks_(Hopper)&oldid=1194972357"