Talk:Seven (1995 film)

Did you know nomination

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 Bruxton (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

1969 composite sketch of the Zodiac Killer

• ... that Ned Beatty was originally wanted to play the villain John Doe in Seven because of his resemblance to a 1969 composite sketch of the Zodiac Killer (pictured)? Source: https://www.indiewire.com/2014/09/david-fincher-originally-wanted-ned-beatty-to-play-john-doe-in-se7en-talks-unmarketable-fight-club-and-more-272026/
  • ALT1: ... that the actress who played the lust victim in Seven was cast in the role after the director's assistant said she had the personality and body to portray a "dead hooker"? Source: https://ew.com/article/1995/10/06/corpse-stars-seven/
  • ALT2: ... that Ned Beatty turned down the role of John Doe in the film Seven because the script was the most evil thing he'd ever read? Source: https://www.indiewire.com/2014/09/david-fincher-originally-wanted-ned-beatty-to-play-john-doe-in-se7en-talks-unmarketable-fight-club-and-more-272026/
  • ALT3: ... that director David Fincher made the film Seven even though after his debut film Alien 3 he had said "I'd rather die of colon cancer than make another movie"? Source: https://www.nme.com/features/seven-brad-pitt-morgan-freeman-david-fincher-2759534
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Lankyant (talk), Darkwarriorblake (talk), Chalksergeant (talk), and DatGuy (talk). Nominated by Lankyant (talk) at 23:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Seven (1995 film); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - other

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Lankyant: Good article. Though, "that Ned Beatty was originally wanted to play the villain John Doe" looks to have some grammar errors that I'd like fixed before I approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke: Is this better?

• ... that Ned Beatty was offered the role of serial killer John Doe in Seven because of his resemblance to a 1969 composite sketch of the Zodiac Killer (pictured)? Lankyant (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That's better. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I will promote. Great movie and good article. The image is a bit too tangential so I will promote without it. Bruxton (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Likely AI-generated edits

Hi - I have tagged this article as likely using AI, specifically the ~2023-2024 edits by Darkwarriorblake. A lot of them are "just" copyedits, but some, like this, introduce large chunks of new material. They display, across the board, strong indications of AI use (see the "AI vocabulary" section in particular; the timeline of the edits, 2023-24, lines up with the vocab distribution and what peaked when).

The sources here are paywalled so I am unable to spot-check for accuracy and source-to-text integrity (mainly, do the sources actually corroborate that whatever "highlights" or "emphasizes" or "plays a crucial role in" whatever), but someone with access should. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Got some cheek on you Gnomingstuff. I wrote the article, I put it forward for FA, and part of that required me, under time constraints, to source and add thematic content, which I did, and then refined and refined down as much as I could. If you have a specific issue, highlight it, but broadly accusing me of using AI when I've rewritten the article from scratch is not acceptable. At the very least, you should have raised the issue on my talk page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. This is/was the wrong way to approach the matter. There's a huge gulf between a series of large, perfectly constructed edits dropped into articles by an anonymous account created two weeks ago, and a (very) long-established editor with no particular 'drama' or bad behavior associated with the account adding content. This should either have been approached directly w/Darkwarriorblake, or opened here as a discussion of whether AI is involved, rather than an allegation. And definitely should not have tagged the article without at least some discussion first.

Mistakes happen, and judgement/discretion sometimes wavers, I can attest to that in my own behavior on numerous occasions, so I'm not just pointing fingers. Please assume good faith by asking the editor involved if AI/LLM has been used before slapping a template on an article. If it's a four day old anonymous account, and the edits reek of AI, sure. Otherwise, no. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I know the work DWB has decided me on movie articles and it's definitely not LLM type edits, they are very thorough in what they write. Masem (t) 23:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This feels like a blatant attack for no apparent reason rather than a genuine question. Gnomingstuff even saying "someone else should check" feels disruptive and disrespectful than constructive. Totally uncalled for. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I can say that Aleain also experienced this kind of thing here, at 1959 Singaporean general election

See also Special:Permalink/1329309436#I see that User:Gnomingstuff accused you of AI usage at the article "1959 Singaporean general election" (Aleain's talk page) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 05:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I have asked on their talk page if they could respond to this. It looks someone else took issue with an article they heavily edited was tagged with being AI written. Gnomingstuff didn't have much to say back. Looking at their history, they have tagged a lot of articles with this based on... suspicion? I can vouch that Blake has edited/expanded articles the same way even before AI was a thing. Before accusing editors, please provide solid proof. Or at least go directly to their talk page. Mike Allen 16:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)