This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 October 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AvaClariceM. Peer reviewers: Gabbymatheson.
I suggest that this be removed or clarified since the main basis for this idea is the Japanese pornographic video series "kunoichi" and perhaps some anime. The traditional understanding of kunoichi is simply a female ninja.
Rethinking the meaning of the Femme Fatale archetype[edit]
Before anyone comes and revamps my entry please think for a moment. Being a big follower of literature and various other media, I believe the definition of the Femme Fatale is much more complicated than just "A murdurous, sexual woman." This may have been the literal meaning of the phrase at first but I believe in our modern culture the archtype stands for many more things than just that.
I included the debate on Lilith...as I think she's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Lilith is one of the most basic examples of a Femme Fatale, and many for years thought of her as pure evil. Why is that exactly though? Is it because she was truly evil or simply because she merely wanted to go her own way? The text on Lilith quite obviously states that the reason Lilith was damned to hell and demonhood was because she wished for equality to Adam...and she was denied it and seen as a traitor to God and heaven for it. I think personally this is a barbaric view but I disgress.
Many so called Femme Fatale characters in history are arguably not venomous or evil, just simply out for their own purposes most of the time. The main character of the film Mulan Rouge is often stated to be a Femme Fatale, yet she wasn't an evil character. She had immoral tendancies but in the end, all she wanted was her dream. Mystique in the X-Men comic books is an excellent example of a modern Femme Fatale, but she's not evil. The comic never insinuates that she's evil...she's just been betrayed so much and shown extreme prejudice to that she's eventually become the woman she is currently. Its not hard to understand why.
I believe while it is important to explain what Femme Fatale means, I think the difference between a good Wikipedia article and just a plain mediocre entry is briefly but surely delving into some of the complications and social perspectives that go into the word as well. While it may be much to say a woman is a Femme Fatale just because she's sexual...there are a lot of female characters many consider Femme Fatales that cross a lot of the lines.
Changes to my entry and the whole entry in general are welcome, but I strongly urge future posters to put a little more thought and meat onto the article than just flat out erasing my entry and keeping it bare bones minimum. This entry needs attention for a reason, it needs more information! Everyone knows what a Femme Fatale is...but whats its relevance in history? What are the complications and exceptions that go with it? Thats what Wikipedia is really about.
So please...don't just erase it without any contribution of your own. Think about it for a moment...--Kiyosuki 06:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mystique really is quite evil. I think that evil can be (lazily) defined as willing to do anything, with no regard to others, for your own comfort or power. Mystique fits that to a T (a phrase i have never understood, maybe its tea)
WookMuff 31/01/06
Why is evil the main defining characteristic. Femme fatales historically in art are not always evil. They are women with a sexual nature, but there isn't always a malicious intent present, it is often more submissive. Do your research.
Hey does anyone know when the term femme fatale was coined? 19th century France maybe? Grice 00:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OED suggests it was first used in the English language in the 1920s. I know, not very helpful, but I tried. --Fastfission 03:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary says 'ORIGIN early 20th cent.: Fr., lit. ‘disastrous woman’.' Don't know if that's any help --drak2 10:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For a long time the phrase's meaning in the French language has been clear: a fatal woman, i.e. a woman it is dangerous to love, whether the reason be a jealous lover, her own evil, her political situation (daughter of a powerful/rich family or having personal political power), or combination thereof. In the opera Carmen, for instance, Carmen betrays Don José to escape the punishment for attacking her coworker, but the murder Don José commits does not avenge Carmen's wrong but feeds his own evil jealousy. In the original book by Merimée (not the opera), Don José kills a jealous senior officer while Carmen looks on, and later kills her husband and Carmen herself, having arranged a mass for the dying beforehand. The use of the term in English, for most of the female anti-heroes described here, is consistent with the meaning of the French term as just described. For modern-day female sociopaths who use their sexuality as weapons, French tend to borrow the Italian term diva (a variant of goddess in that language), although that term is very recent, about 1920. Modus Vivendi 05:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maye West and Jessica Rabbitt are not really femme fatales. They are sexual, but are they evil or murderous? Nope, pure of heart. I'm going to remove them.
First, please sign your posts. Second, a femme fatale does not have to be evil. In many instances, most notably in Gilda and Chinatown, the femme fatale only appears to be conniving. The manner in which she uses seduction is really the kicker - she is the catalyst that pulls the male character into the plot. However, I do agree that some of these entries are questionable at best (e.g. Poison Ivy? Come on, why not include Cruel Intentions then?). There are a lot of lolita films that do not employ "femme fatale" characters. - IstvanWolf 03:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the article says: A femme fatale is a nexus of evil, whether it be her own, that of a lover, of a third party, or some combination thereof varies, but generally arises when a woman's traditional role as subservient lover comes into conflict with other goals. Thus, a completely moral woman may be a femme fatale, but this not how her lover(s) see it because they are blinded by their own goals. To emphasize this point, it would be useful to remove some of the earlier text such as "typically villainous". Modus Vivendi 11:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning, then, that the term is often used now with a connotation of a woman so beautiful - and so stylised in her beauty - that she can corrupt men or make them incapable of judgment, without herself being corrupt? Faye Dunaway in Chinatown, Jessica Rabbit, Lauren Bacall in The Big Sleep - they're all considered "femme fatale" characters, but none of them are actually morally bankrupt. Maybe it's even worth saying that the term is now associated with a certain image, rather than character. Smoky eyes and red lipstick carry the association, even if the character herself is morally good. Now, enough of that rambling. Any thoughts? 86.40.222.10 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also question the example of Elektra from Marvel Comics. As I recall, Elektra was a warrior, putting her more in an Amazon-type archetype than femme fatale. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.248.71 (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ellie from Skins is not a femme fatale. It is an embarrassment to all the real femme fatales of history, movies, literature and TV to even consider her as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.83.39 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was Cleopatra a villain who ensnared the hapless hero? I can imagine she was portrayd as such in a couple of movies, but that doesn't justify that the historical person should be labelled as such. The article Cleopatra VII of Egypt doesn't give support for her femme fatale-ness either. I remove her. / Habj 01:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleopatra is currently back in the list. I agree that the historical Cleopatra wasn't a villain; for the most part, she acted to protect and promote Egypt, as a good monarch should. Most, if not all of the evil deeds attributed to her were attempts to blacken her memory (and make Octavian Augusts look good for defeating her) after she was dead. However, it you take the term femme fatale to refer to "a woman that's dangerous to love," it certainly fits when you consider what happened to both of the men she associated herself with, Julius Caesar and Marc Antony. JDZeff (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like more literary examples are needed, like Mallarme's Herodiade and the Salome found in Dario's poem. Salome was a major figure in French literature throughout the 19th C. (See The New History of French Literature, edited by Denis Holier).
On the English side, De Qunicey's Our Ladies of the Sorrows provide a complicated example.
See also Margaret Atwoods superb novel "The Robber Bride" for modern day depiction of a femme fatale.
I've eliminated Dominique Francon (from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead) from the list for several reasons: she is good, not villainous; she does not have "insatiable" sexual desire; she does not "ensnare a hapless hero." In short, she doesn't meet the criteria at all. LaszloWalrus 09:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A big point of debate is the subject of Lilith, the mythological first wife of Adam before Eve. In most texts depicting Lilith, many point out that her only real crime against Adam and God was voicing her own opinion. She is sentenced to hell, and God creates a new woman for Adam in the form of Eve.
This part of the article needs a citation. There is little consensus as to where the Lilith myth comes from; many archaeologists and scholars of ancient mythology believe it to be a post hoc interpretation of a different myth, an example of syncretism, or the consequence of a mistranslation.
--Citation--
The above appears to be opinion Lilith is a Old Testement pre christianity character that is partially written out of Hebrew versions of the book of Genesis, post Christianity's middle age rise. Sumerian myths related to a Litith are about the same time as original Hebrew & Arameic texts. The main difference is that the Sumerian texts are unedited as the civilization changes and dies off prior to the western rise of Judaism and then Christianity both of which go through significant internal politcal changes during the periods from 100BC to 1800AD. Judaism goes through major repression during the 1000 to 1600 period and many changes are made to Judaic texts during the repression, by the now overwhelmingly Christian, European cultures. Witcombe [1] clearly references such changes and those text are a direct reference to Old Testatment inclusion of Lilith and the subsequent removal. Lilith's place in the bible changes as the need to highlight one figure (i.e. Mary via the Cult of the Virgin Mary) and other figures are marginalized or even removed to promote other figures. I have removed the verification and included external link to the verification. If you disagree feel free to remove the external link but please cite contrary sources that Lilith was added post hoc to biblical references.--Ffocuser 17:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the unreferenced politically correct handwringing in the intro is a bit POV. I don't think a wikipedia article is the right place for moralising about whether a concept is PC or not. Colin4C 12:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC):[reply]
A femme fatale is thus a source of disruption: this generally arises when her actions put her in conflict with woman's traditional role as subservient to the males in her life. For this reason a modern feminist woman may regard a so-called femme fatale in movies or fiction in ways quite different than her male companions do. Consider the feminist view of the options faced by a woman who wields power that is not inherent, if she marries:
Her husband's love may not be honest: his true goal may be to possess that power.
Even if initially honest, he may change as the relationship develops. This might occur because of some character flaw in him, or through pressure from his family or friends.
A woman of power, therefore, needs to proceed carefully into romance. Since she typically surrenders much of her personal political and financial power to the marriage, she has reason to establish a fallback position. This can be done by withholding resources, perhaps by keeping a separate bank account. Tragedy can ensue, however, if she chooses to counterbalance her husband's traditional assets of wealth and powerful connections with the femme fatale's assets. Then, as happens in some film noir, she runs the risk of destroying their relationship and even her husband and herself. The extreme of this sympathetic version of the femme fatale would be a woman who was defrauded of everything by her husband, forced to survive by crime or prostitution.
Sometimes, a fictional femme fatale is simply a malignant villain who emotionally enslaves her partners for her enjoyment, since not all stock characters have layer upon layer of nuance. The men in these stories normally bring such a villainess down by the end.
This article is absolutely terrible. It is full of original research and speculation, and makes no attempt to act as an informed or structured introduction to the topic. It reads like an essay, and a poorly-referenced essay at that - the sort of thing a high-school student might cobble together from Google at the last minute. I have tried to clean up its tone a bit but there isn't much that can be done without adding a lot more in terms of decent academic or published sources to back up some of these claims. It would be a good idea for anyone thinking of contributing to this article to have a skim of WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOR. -- TinaSparkle 12:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are probably right Tina. What I'm wondering is whether the femme fatale is a literary construct or whether she really exists. Is the literary archetype based on misogynist male fantasy or on real women? And does the femme fatale only exist in the consciousness of men or are women also affected by her charms? Colin4C 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keats addresses this issue in one of his poems La Belle Dame sans Merci: A Ballad. He is ambiguous enough in the poem that it is not clear whether the woman he met was really a femme fatale, or whether he just sees her as one. Also, as the theme progressed in literature, it changed a little. Especially after/during WWI, poets started writing about women as talking men into going to war, and thus to their deaths (Siegfried Sassoon's Glory of Women and Yeats' No Second Troy). In other words, different ages use the theme in different ways.
I, personally, don't think this article has OR problems (maybe it's changed since I got here), just in-line citation problems. I guess we just need to find the sources for the statements in the ref section at the bottom, or elsewhere. Wrad 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided some refs Colin4C 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who tries to shrug off a classic literary archetype as "sexist" is a butthurt feminist who needs to get her head out of the 1800's. Just thought I'd point that out.
There is something of central importance to the conception of a femme fatale missing from what is on offer here that has nothing to do with sexism or political correctness, but everything to do with the reality of gender difference. A femme fatale is able to ensnare men and/or bend them to her will precisely because men are susceptible to such exploitation. It is a man's own 'fatal defect'--his own weakness--skilfully turned to advantage by a femme fatale that gives her an ascendancy over him. This may seem obvious--so obvious that the article neglects to mention it--but unless the parasitic dependency of the femme fatale phenomenon is acknowledged it remains unintelligible. A femme fatale cannot advance her own interests by coercion; she can only do so by encouraging men to undermine themselves for her sake. She plays an agency role and is the beneficiary in the relationship, but the fatal flaw which allows her to succeed is contributed by men themselves. Analogically, we can liken a femme fatale to a computer hacker who is 'dangerous' only to systems that have exploitable flaws to begin with and thus lend themselves to being hacked.
";he, the femme fatale today is still often described as having a power akin to an enchantress"
TYPO? The "he," at the beginning seems to be spurious and the passage reads correctly without it. (Please delete this paragraph if you fix the problem in the article)
I would say Carmen fits the description almost perfectly. 24.226.77.23 (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but you have to provide a reference--Taranet (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Spirit - Oct. 6, 1946.jpg[edit]
The image Image:Spirit - Oct. 6, 1946.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The devil in the Ninth Gate, night-elf archer of Warcraft 3, the lead character in Heavenly Sword, Lucia von Bardas, Dark Elves and Morene Strident in Kingdom Under Fire, Buki of the Sudeki, Selenia of Arthur and the Minimoys, Inara Serra of Firefly (see Firefly (TV series) ), Lara Croft of Tomb Raider, the sorceress appearing in specific episode of Skyland, the sorceress apearing in Ben10, the female caracter in The 5th element, Suki of Avatar, Willow of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the lead caracter of Tabula Rasa, princess Farah/Elika in Prince of Persia (Allies from the Prince of Persia series#Princess Farah), Jade of Beyond Good and Evil (Beyond Good & Evil (video game)), Alyx Vance of Half Life 2 (Alyx Vance), the female caracters in terminator:the sarah connor chronicles, ...
... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.174.158 (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other near femme Fatales are Twilight Zone's "The Queen of the Nile", La Belle Dame sans Merci; Kolchak: The Night Stalker episodes "Demon In Lace" and "The Youth Killer" of fatales who kill/drain men with black magic to stay eternally young; a variation was the Sci-Fi series Otherworld episode "Paradise Lost" and "Star Trek" Cartoon series episode The Lorelei Signal in which the villians use science instead of magic for eternal youth/and or seduce men.
Both dictionary.com and m-w.com have prerecorded audio files where the speaker pronounces the word 'fehm' fatale. Is there a citation for the pronunciation 'fahm' fatal being most common and in standard usage? I have indeed hear both pronunciations personally... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.105.5 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence bugs me a lot:
"The ideas involved are closely tied to fears of the female witch and misogyny[1] while, according the History of Television.ca, a Canadian website which outlines television's history, the femme fatale "remains an example of female independence and a threat to traditional female gender roles".[2]"
Besides having grammatical errors, it is incorrect. The citation is linked to History Television's website, which is a Canadian television station's website, not a website about the history of television. Since this is my first time here, I'm not going to edit it, but I thought I'd point that out for someone who is more comfortable to do so.Upsidedown i (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Upsideown_i[reply]
Yes, that should be removed. Poorly written and poorly referenced are two big strikes. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the incorrect sentence but I kept the citation in, because the reference link is itself correct. Upsidedown i (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will editors please discuss their reasons for deleting paragraphs in the article here on the talk page and try to reach a concensus view before doing so. Thanks. Colin4C (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? Have you even read this ridiculous section? I mean, seriously, "Lilith is a famous succubus that exists in almost every creation myth"—and you restored this?
The only part of it that is referenced is the first line, and a mythical figure or deity being female does not instantly qualify it as a "femme fatale". Now, some people might cite mythical figures or deities as being exactly that, but that requires specific wording and references to back it up. And then you have utter nonsense like the quote involving Lilith above. Please use your head, and, hey, maybe even help other editors keep Wikipedia free from pollution like this. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put a [citation needed] tag if need be rather than blindly deleting stuff. You have only Lilithmentioned one sentence that you object to: "Lilith is a famous succubus that exists in almost every creation myth" and therefore chop the whole paragraph that it is in, which includes a sentence about historical figures like Cleopatra - who - though regarded as a goddess - we have many refs to her being regarded as an historical figure and a femme fatale archetype: "Roman propaganda attacked Cleopatra as a femme fatale; as a result, she became the legendary archetype of the attractions and the dangers inherent to the powerful, exotic woman." What is your objection to this? It is not outlandish rubbish or "pollution". All you need to do is put a "citation needed" tag on it rather than delete a whole para because you don't agree with the Lilith bit.
And where do you get the idea that female mythical figures instantly qualify as femme fatales? It is not mentioned or implied anywhere in the paragraphs you have deleted:
One of the earliest examples is a succubus, a demonic female legendary creature who seduces men in their sleep. Lilith is a famous succubus that exists in almost every creation myth. Other early examples are Ishtar, the Sumerian goddess, and the biblical figures of Eve, Delilah, Salome and Jezebel. In ancient Greek literature, the femme fatale is incarnated by Aphrodite, the Sirens, the Sphinx, the empusa, Scylla, Circe, Calypso, Medea, Helen of Troy, Lamia and Clytemnestra. Beside them is the historical figure Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, with her ability to seduce the powerful men of Rome. Roman propaganda attacked Cleopatra as a femme fatale; as a result, she became the legendary archetype of the attractions and the dangers inherent to the powerful, exotic woman.
The femme fatale as an archetypal character also existed in Chinese myths, stories and history, certain concubines (such as the historical Yang Guifei) have been accused of being responsible in part for the weakening and downfall of dynasties, by seducing her lover into neglecting his duties or twisting him to her will.
In India, Mohini a female avatar of Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva happens specifically to seduce and enchant the Asuras (the demons, opponents of Devas, the celestial beings) from having the elixir.
Seeing as you are getting personal about this I'd like to inform you that I do use my head which is why one of my articles is the 300th featured article on the wikipedia and why my stuff on Roman religion is published by the the Cambridge University Press. Your talk of "pollution" is uncivil and rhetorical and bullying. Most of the stuff in this para comes from Praz and can be referenced. Colin4C (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is very simple: provide solid references and cite it appropriately, or leave it out. Uncited information, often of dubious quality, is a plague on Wikipedia, and contention about removing unreferenced material does Wikipedia no favors. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is all very vague. Let's work together to try to improve this article. This following paragraph which you deleted is about Chinese myth and legend, which is not my specialist subject, but it doesn't seem to me to be obviously ridiculous or "polluting". If it is please point out to me the ridiculous or polluting aspects. If it is not obviously barmy, one or the other of us can supply refs and so do the wikipedia "some favors" or put a [citation needed] tag for some Chinese specialist, who may be reading these very words now, to assist us:
"The femme fatale as an archetypal character also existed in Chinese myths, stories and history, certain concubines (such as the historical Yang Guifei) have been accused of being responsible in part for the weakening and downfall of dynasties, by seducing her lover into neglecting his duties or twisting him to her will." Colin4C (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To demontrate that it is not "ridiculous" or "polluting" to say that Lilith is a femme fatale and a succubus here's some stuff by scholars with regard to Lilith being both:
"In Eastern tradition Lilith, as princess of the succubi is primarily a seductress of men" (Praz: 282)
"Lilith is the Semitic name for the beautiful and licentious unmarried harlot who seduces men in streets and field" - (Stephen H. Langdon Tammuz and Ishtar OUP: 74) Colin4C (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quote was: "Lilith is a famous succubus that exists in almost every creation myth". See the bold? Lilith exists in every creation myth? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you remove all of the sentence it if only a detail of it was unverified? Why then did you delete a whole section because part of one sentence was unverified? Please be constructive. If there was sentence in the wikipedia that said that "Obama is President of the United States and championship skateboarder of the world", I would either require citations for the last part "Obama is President of the United States and championship skateboarder of the world"[citation needed], or modify it to "Obama is President of the United States.[1] I wouldn't just delete the whole thing and then accuse long-standing editors of the wikipedia of "pollution". If editors wanted to be nit picky the wikipedia would have been destroyed long ago by systematic mass deletions of unreferenced stuff editors were not personally sure about. I think such an attitude is negative. Hard-copy encyclopedias also contain some duff information. Does one then burn them because of that? Wouldn't one rather ask for a new improved edition? Let's be constructive here. Colin4C (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Fred Bloggs (2010) Presidents I Have Known: 110-12
While it may be appropriate to append noinclude text, it should follow the same rules as any other. No need to shout or command. Naturally a well referenced fact would be worthy of inclusion, therefor, simply stating "Do not put something into this article" is not as accurate as "do not put this in unless well referenced". That is the basis of my last reversion to this article. Cheers My76Strat 04:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "In Popular Culture" section needs a major overhaul. For one, it reads as a list, without any specifics about what makes each character a femme fatale. It also seems that whoever wrote it has decided (without citation) that Femme Fatale now means simply "strong female" or "heroic female." At least half of the examples given are not in any way femme fatales. And that's not to mention the numerous spelling errors and odd sentence structure.
Can someone go through that entry and rewrite it so that it's an article rather than a list, and remove all the false examples (which is over HALF of them)? Whenever I try to remove the false examples or simply undo the additions (which were made by a single user on Nov 2), it triggers it as vandalism. Why can false and uncited information be added in bulk so easily, but to remove it flags it as vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.162.214 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to see if anyone had said the same thing. That section is terrible. Whoever wrote it seems to be listing female characters almost at random -- anyone who's "strong" and anyone who's attractive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.192.41 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first half of this sentence is uninteresting (so she used the phrase, big deal) and the latter half is gibberish, so I removed it. —Tamfang (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Femme fatale. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
I would like to contend that some of the examples listed do not meet the qualifications of a femme fatale as defined by the article. Sean Young's character in Blade Runner is, if anything, the OPPOSITE of a femme fatale, a complete innocent incapable of manipulating anyone into anything. Similar is Isabella Rossellini's character in Blue Velvet. She is a victim of circumstance, and is more of a target for Kyle McLachlan's character than a seductress herself. Also, one of the 'femme fatale's' listed as played by Marion Cotillard - her character in Midnight in Paris - is not a femme fatale at all. The other examples I can not speak for as I either agree with them or are not familiar with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.233.177 (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Femme fatale/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Honestly one of the better articles on a literary type. Not GA, though. Just needs more development. Wrad 03:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last edited at 03:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 15:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Link to the male equivalent of the femme fatale?[edit]
How do you call a male equivalent of the femme fatale? How about a link to it? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fatal woman does not convey the same meaning in English. Better would be "deadly woman" or "lethal woman". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.90.50.2 (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve just gone through the Examples section; I’ve split a number of entries which combined different characters from different films played by the same actress, as it is the character who is the femme fatale, not the actress. I've also promoted the Examples sub-section to a full section, and split the tables into Film and Television sub-sections, to make editing easier. I trust everyone is OK with that. Swanny18 (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past few months this article has become a clothes rack for for a long list of supposed examples added by a now-blocked user. user:Drmies removed the list in October, and it has been restored without comment by an IP. I agree with the removal and am removing it again. Meters (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Meters. God, it's all over all of these articles, such lists. I think we have another disaster at Sex symbol or whatever it's called. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps we should also have an article on the Homme Fatale aka the Femme Fatale's male counterpart, a seductive man who uses his handsome charm and smile to lure women into deadly traps, and dig in a bit deeper into what also makes them deadly Hewwoh (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The new edits from that section were removed with the summary "rv. we already have excessive examples". I reverted them back. The new edits are focused on discussing more prominently the example of Phyllis Dietrichson (portrayed by Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity). I believe any section discussing the era of classic film noirs (1940s and 1950s) needs to focus on this character, because it is a character which is considered an archetype of the femme fatale (this is sourced) and Double Indemnity is one of the most emblematic examples of a film depicting a femme fatale (the film is centered on the actions of the femme fatale, unlike other films where the femme fatale plays a more minor role). If you believe that there are too many examples in that section (and in other sections) than feel free to trim and improve the section/article (only two more examples were added by the new edits; the example of Phyllis Dietrichson was already there, the edits only expanded on it), but I don't think the whole revert was justified. Please discuss this here, rather than doing a full revert. The section is not perfect, but neither was it in good shape before the new edits. 2A02:2F0F:B110:B500:D59C:C464:85DB:941C (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 October 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AvaClariceM. Peer reviewers: Gabbymatheson.
.jpg)
