# Talk:The Great Silence

Image:Great silence dvdcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statement regarding Silence's pistol being an anachronism. If the gun existed during the time the movie was set, why would it be anachronistic? As well, the flashback scene doesn't specify what year it took place in... it's entirely possible it was after 1896.
Also, I changed dumb to mute, since it's considered offensive. Meliadoul (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The article stated: The segment from Bava's Black Sabbath titled 'Wurdulak' was also an inspiration for the film.  "A nobleman, Count Vladimir D'Urfe (Mark Damon) discovers the headless corpse of Alibek (a Turkish bandit) in the snowbound mountains on his way to Yessey.  He takes it to a nearby peasant house, where he finds a family living in fear.  Their father, an old man named Gorka (Boris Karloff) has been hunting for the bandit for days and is due back at ten o'clock that night; Alibek is a wurdulak (a vampire): 'a cadaver always seeking blood'.  If Gorka hasn't returned by the appointed hour, his family must kill him, as he has been vampirised too."  The film also draws from the basic theme of A Fistful of Dollars (1964)  in that there are "warring factions fighting over a town."
Some of this has been challenged a year ago. The main claim, that the movie resembles the vampire scene from Black sabbath, looks completely made up. No source for any claim has been given.

I've once seen the altern. ending WITH sound.
The (thought-to-be-dead) sheriff comes to aid Silence, and they whack (i.e. kill them dead) the bounty hunters - Kinski (Loco) is the first one who gets it, right in the kisser, a bullet that is.
After the grim killing, it is revealed that Silence wore some nifty scale-plate hand protection, and his hand injuries were just faked.
Meanwhile, the Bandits/Outsiders are arrested, although they can expect amnesty and a pardon - but for a while, they "need to be arrested", although the Sheriff has no grudge against them "although you ate my horse".
Then the Sheriff tells Sil. that he could use "a guy who knows what to do and doesnt talk much", and Silence gives a friendly smile.
Main Theme fades in, credits roll.
Indeed the short 1:50 minutes clip is in Italian, and probably another dub exists, but nobody knows about it.
Remember, many movies and dubs were lost over time, like all of the Laurel and Hardy "Real-Synchro" versions, where they dubbed themselfes by just pretending to speak German, French, etc.
PS: I prefer this ending a lot over the "all dead" Version. I just cant stand the bad guys seeing another day, and the good ones being killed.

So from what I'm looking at no the sites About Us page, I do not think this site should be used as a source in this article, as it just appears to be another fan wiki.Per WP:USERGENERATED, I don't think we need to find a different/better source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Great Silence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am going to give this article a Review for possible GA status.  It is massive so be patient...might take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Looks good. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Reference #57/Fantom.com isn't working, Reference #62 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002KM9V3I?ie=UTF8&tag=spaghetti-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B002KM9V3)I isn't working - I'm also not sure why an Amazon listing is being used as a reference, that's not reliable. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, I brought up on the talk page earlier something that never seemed to be picked up. Some of the reception section pulls from a site called the spaghetti western database, which appears to be another wiki, which is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Any further work on this Review is    until the following issues are resolved:
In the "Subversion of protagonist" section there are some troubling areas of commonality with:
Article: then delivers a symbolic "castration" upon the hero,
Source(Ref#20): The latter then delivers a symbolic "castration" upon the hero by taking the Mauser for himself after killing him
Article: Thus, when his own hands are injured, a "Freudian Cycle" is complete
Source (Ref #24): Silence would often shoot his victims in the hands, perhaps a Freudian response to his own mutilation.
Article: Silence's choice of weapon is a semi-automatic Mauser C96 – its rapid rate of fire gives him an unfair advantage over his opponents, therefore his marksmanship comes in part from technological, not physical, prowess.
Source(Ref #20): His gun is a semi automatic Mauser rather than a revolver. His accuracy with it is incredible, but the gun’s more rapid rate of fire gives him an unfair advantage over his opponents, who are using the standard single action revolvers familiar from most Westerns. His ‘exceptional ability’ in this case is more as a result of technology than any physical prowess.
This article is, in general, very well-written - I am sure that these issues are inadvertent but this section needs to be completely re-written to take care of any possible plagiarism/copyvio issues. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
These issues have been adjusted to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
everything looks fine. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
See "References" section below. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Pass.All of this article's referencing issues have been fixed according to WP guidelines/parameters.  This article is well-written and is well-researched according to WP:GA Criteria.  PatTheMoron was a pleasure to work with, worked on improving the article, taking my suggestions and running with them.  Going forward, some possible future improvements would be keeping the article up-to-date with the recently-announced 4K restoration (& possible public screenings?...we can only hope).  Shearonink (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


### Protagonist section
[The post below was originally posted on my talkpage, but I moved it here to keep all the discussion on the Review page. Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)]
Thank you very much for your review of The Great Silence. I removed the Amazon-related info from the DVD section, but how do you recommend I go about with the other changes you recommended? What should I rewrite within the protagonist section? PatTheMoron (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You've read a lot of articles/books about the movie?  Write something up in your sandbox in your own words, paraphrasing what these other writers have stated in published sources and use their books/articles as the references.  You can use references as your sources, you just have to put their information into your own words. Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Shearonink, I've rewritten part of the protagonist section to explicitly mention the writers who described the film in the terms they did. Is it okay, now? PatTheMoron (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@PatTheMoron: Am taking another look at that - I'm actually doing a deep proofread-readthrough, so I'll let you know. Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


### References
As User:Andrzejbanas mentions in GA Criteria 2B, some of the information is sourced from a user-edited website the "Spaghetti Western Database".  Some of the statements might be ok, but this issue needs to be discussed & hashed-out here before I can pass on 2B as being fulfilled. Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Reference #7's website name has changed,  Please update it to "http://film.thedigitalfix.com/content.php?contentid=12471". Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@PatTheMoron: I see you fixed Reference #7.  Have you been able to work on what to do about the Spaghetti Western Database?  References from user-submitted websites are not reliable sources.  I would like to finish up this Review but I cannot until these various refs are dealt with: Ref #8, #32, #33, #34, #34.  Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for my late reply, but I've kept the SWDB source about the ending while changing the sources regarding the top 10 lists. Will this do? PatTheMoron (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@PatTheMoron: No apologies necessary, Life sometimes interferes with Wikipedia-ing.  I think that your changes are probably sufficient, but since Andrzejbanas raised the issue up-page I'm pinging them to weigh in. The remaining cite within the main text is for an action that the members of that website took - is there some other reliable source/reference that states this information?   I do have an issue with how the SWDb linkage within External Links is represented -  is the  present linkage/SWDb URL in External links really the official website? Shearonink (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing the issues I brought up before. I'd agree with Shearonink, it's a good idea to have this site as an external link, but this whole extra credit is purely fan driven and sourcing another wiki. The statement does not even cover what it addresses. For example, it states "However, a version with Italian dubbing was eventually discovered, and has been translated into English by members of the Spaghetti Western Database fansite.". The site make no mention of it being discovered, but just offers a translation of footage in a youtube clip. Personally, I'd remove this until more information becomes available. In the past 15 years, there has been a lot more published in print and online about Italian genre films then I could ever dream of. I imagine that better sources will become available. Until then, I'd prefer removing this statement per my reasons above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@PatTheMoron:
If a reliable source could be found for that statement about the Italian dubbing, that would pass muster, otherwise the statement & ref should be removed.
The External links URL still states within its coding that the Spaghetti Western website is the official website - this should be adjusted within the code to reflect that the spaghetti-western.net link is not the official website of the movie.
As soon as these two matters are dealt with, I will be able to finish up this Review. Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I've got it! The new info I found on the recent 4K restoration of the film mentions that the sound elements of the alternative ending do exist. Should I use that as the main source instead? PatTheMoron (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@PatTheMoron: Oh, I see that you already took care of that while I was writing something else up - good job.  The remaining issue is that the Spaghetti Western link in the External Links section is using the "official website" template and it really isn't the official website.  I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea from looking at the internal Wiki-code. If you could take care of that I ca finish up this Review later today. Shearonink (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. PatTheMoron (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits have gone back and forth on this issue. Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The parts that in some edits have been given the "citation needed" template do have their info covered by the sources listed at the ends of the paragraphs in which they appear. I understand that some of what appears there looks like my opinion (it isn't necessarily), but it is representative of the ideas put forward by the original sources. PatTheMoron (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This article currently only contains retrospective reviews, which tend to lean more positive than reviews published at the time if a film’s release. Where are those contemporaneous reviews? Morganfitzp (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)