# Talk:Schindler's List

This is a movie that has not only been celebrated as a film, but by and large has been highly regarded by Holocaust survivors and the Jewish Community as a whole. It seems like this section is just adding every notable person who has ever disliked the film. The section comes across as highly POV Drsmoo (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! Rotten Tomatoes tomatometer shows that 97 % of 60 critics like'd the film. I think that Criticism-section has too much accusations in it and not enough actual film reviews been cited.--BlutoFromFinland (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it strikes me as extremely odd that for one of the most highly-acclaimed films of all time, the "Reception" section devotes more wordcount to negative feedback than positive. 24.152.180.71 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The article gets 100,000 to 150,000 hits per month and is overdue for some overhaul. I will shortly get some books in on intra-library loan and undertake some improvements. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree there is a lack of balance, but the problem isn't the negative feedback it's that there is very little actual film criticism. I think the peer review section is pretty good, but the "Holocaust survivior" would benefit from the inclusion of a positive reaction. Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as a reader, not an editor, I think there ARE arguments for including as many (intelligent) distinct, negative critical arguments as there are around. I say this not because I wish to 'knock' the film, but because it is interesting to know what has been said. This of course should NOT create an impression, that the film was not very, very, much respected in general. Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
In fact, having just re-read the criticism, I think the fact that so much of the negative criticism 'boomerangs', rather adds to the film's stature. Historians & academics & experts, rightly - given their trade - point out many of the things that the film ISN'T. This informs me, but does little to detract from what the film IS. Pincrete (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, there are significant and elaborate criticism of the film, yet there is only brief mention of these. Instead of shortening this section, it should be expanded. The rewriting of history by movie dramatisations is not ok and it must be made patently clear that it is a not a historical account when this happens. That fact that so many consider this for what it is not, is shocking and does not do humanity a favour, but rather ads to the problem. Lifeboy (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I sympathise, but we can only record such disparities in proportion to the level of criticism made. Lots of people, think WS's Richard III is history, this is a problem as old as fiction itself. Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Lanzmann clearly says his film is not a documentary [University College Utrecht Blog], but the article refers to it as such. Should be corrected. Lifeboy (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Lifeboy, where does the article say the film is a 'documentary'? All the text I can see refers to 'documentary-style', including devices like b+w photography. Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Lifeboy, apologies, I misread 'his' as 'this', another editor has made your suggested change.Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition to copyright concerns, there's a question of balance - if you have a 250-word quotation from one review and only one sentence from another, it implies to our readers that this review is very important, more important than the other reviews. It gives the material undue weight. Short quotations are okay but a 250-word quotation is definitely too much from a copyright point of view, and violates our non-free content criterion as well. Did you know that Schindler's List is in the top thousand for page views on Wikipedia? I hope to bring it to good article status later this year. There's some good resources mentioned in the previous GA review that I hope to try to bring in on intra-library loan. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem from a copyright concern since it seems to be an excerpt from a much larger review, but I agree that it is important to strike a balance and WP:DUE should be observed. Betty Logan (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Read your remarks, thanks! Actually, given that Carney is the world's foremost academic film critic, I'll actually argue that more weight should be given to his opinions. However, if there's a copyright issue, I think the current version can stay. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I will look at this issue in more detail when I get to the article improvements I have planned for later this year or early next year. If Carney's opinion deserves more weight it can be re-balanced at that time. But for now I think it's best if we leave the abbreviated version. Paraphrasing Carney's remarks rather than quoting them outright will give a more interesting and copyright-compliant article, so if this is indeed expanded in the future that would be the way to do it. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I object to this IP's trumpeting of Carney as "the world's foremost academic film critic" with no support for that claim.  Either the IP is Carney himself, or a sycophant, but either way that claim is spurious, and the Carney article reads like a hagiography.  I find this IP's editing pattern highly troubling and I suggest we avoid encouraging him. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you, I'm not Ray Carney (in fact, never even met the guy). 109.186.234.86 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
You're totally out of line and in severe violation of WP policy. -- Jibal (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
You're saying this in response to a thread that's over four years old? DonIago (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite, what now? I removed erroneous information from the article (that "Robin Williams called Spielberg every two weeks"), gave a reference to a clarification by Robin Williams ("I think I only called him once, maybe twice."). Got reverted by Betty Logan ("It isn't Williams though; it is some bloke on an internet forum."). I explained Reddit's verification process on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reddit_.28IAmA.29. It clearly is William. Then you put the erroneous information back in the article with the unhelpful comment "The argument is irrelevant." and didn't react on your talk page when I asked you to explain which argument you mean and why it is irrelevant. How do we proceed? --Kurt Jansson (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

in the Cast section Helen Hirsch was linking to the article for Helen Jonas-Rosenzweig and... well they are two different people. so i removed the link. ≈Sensorsweep (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this error. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Should not the claim 'Regarded as one of the greatest films ever made' be qualified, saying WHO regarded it thus? Otherwise it just sounds like hyperbole.Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Such grand claims should always be attributed, since it is not a universal stance no matter how revered it is. Betty Logan (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Following the link, then following a SECOND link, does lead to a source, however I was reluctant to attribute the claim MYSELF, as it may well be on several 'greatest lists'. Pincrete (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
This topic is covered in the opening paragraph of the "Accolades" section, where there's sourced content on this point. I've added a few of the citations from that section to the lead. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I STILL think that it would read better if it said 'sometimes/often etc. regarded' , (but then I'm UK, and we supposedly prefer understatement). As I've said, I don't doubt its being very very highly regarded. Pincrete (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete's simple edit has resulted in a more neutral wording. Good edit. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
Shouldn't Ezra Dagan (the Rabbi) be added to the cast list?
Regards,
99.102.181.104 (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the tip -- Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

In 1939 the Cracow ghetto did not yet exist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.133.131 (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 

The above anon IP appears to be correct, the article (plot section) begins "In 1939, the Germans move Polish Jews into the Kraków Ghetto as World War II begins." … … The Kraków Ghetto article says that the ghetto came into being in March 1941, and that in 39/40, the Germans were moving Jews OUT of Kraków. Pincrete (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Good catch, IP editor. Amended to "In Kraków during World War II, the Germans move Polish Jews into the Kraków Ghetto." -- Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That Schindler's List is on the American Film Institute's list of top-ten 'Epics' is RS:[1](it trails LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and BEN-HUR, but is ahead of GONE WITH THE WIND, SPARTACUS, TITANIC, REDS and THE TEN COMMANDMENTS on that list). However, is Schindler's List generally described as an 'epic', and does WP using that term add anything to the reader's understanding?  … … OK I'm English, a snob and don't care for Hyperbole, but just wanted to get other's opinions.Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It probably fits the definition in a technical sense i.e. you have a personal story in the foreground that has implications on a grand scale. In that sense most war films are "epics" though. Generally I don't really like the term because it gets misused a lot on Wikipedia (can Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 really be described as an epic?), but if the American Film Institute rank it in their list of top 10 epics then its "epicness" is obviously a noteworty attribute. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't dispute the AFI listing as being notable IN ITSELF, merely the use of the term in the opening lede sentence. I think our reactions are probably not dis-similar, the term gets thrown around a lot, to the point of being almost meaningless.Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the descriptor "epic film" as defined at our article epic film fits Schindler's List in that the movie encompasses historical subject matter, has a lengthly run time, on-location filming, authentic period costumes, etc. The descriptor was included in the version of the article that passed GA in Dec 2013. I have no objection to leaving it in. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. I plead guilty to snobbery and defer to others' judgements. Pincrete (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that in the plot section it states he realizes the girl is dead when he sees her coat on a wagon and the symbolism section says that he sees the coat on her dead body. I haven't seen this movie in a really long time so I'm not sure which is correct.  Kap 7 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I watched this scene many times when I did the re-write to try to figure this out. He sees the coat when some of the bodies that were buried on the site are dug up so that they can be burned. It's difficult to distinguish, but I think the body is still inside the coat. I will amend the prose so that both sections say the same thing. Thanks for spotting this. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with changing the genre of this film to war film, as the linked article describes a war film as being specifically about battles and combat. While the events in Schindler's List take place during wartime, there are no combat scenes in this film. I think the genres of epic film and historical period drama are a lot more accurate. — Diannaa (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Source for "epic film":
Source for "historical drama":  — Diannaa (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree, Diannaa. + Adding template for your references here.  Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones  (The Welsh Buzzard) 09:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree. Denisarona (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment Looking over the sources I don't think that Deloop82's and Diannaa's positions are too far apart in all fairness. Deloop favors "war film" and Dianna "epic historical period drama". Favoring Dianna's position even the Allmovie source Deloop has installed counts "Drama" among the primary genres, so "Drama" should arguably be included. The AFI Catalog lists the primary genre as "Drama" and the sub-genre as "World War 2". I think the AFI offers a decent compromise between the two positions i.e. epic World War II drama film, or epic drama film set during World War II etc. Something along those lines would capture both the period setting and the nature of the film for the reader. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Have we not already covered the "set in World War II" aspect by the use of the genre "Historical period drama"? World War II is mentioned in the second sentence.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
... and the opening words of the Plot section. Article should remain as it is in my opinion.  Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones  (The Welsh Buzzard) 12:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Diannaa and Gareth.  The genre should not be changed.  It certainly should not have been changed without discussion, an action for which Deloop82 has been warned multiple times in the past. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
In all honesty both the current description and Deloop's seem valid to me. Both the source that Deloop is attempting to install and the AFI—which I regard as a high quality source since it is compiled by academics—classify it as a war drama, which is why I believe there is scope for a compromise. That said, if Deloop can't be bothered to come and discuss it at the talk page then I am happy to retain the status quo; I am certainly not going to support an edit warrior. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

He particularly notices a tiny girl in a red coat – one of the few splashes of color in the black-and-white film – as she hides from the Nazis, and later sees her body among a wagonload of corpses.
The plot summary isn't the place to describe the use of color in the film. WP:PLOT says "avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail". That Schindler notices a girl is plot - the fact that the film is (mostly) in black and white isn't. Yes, color in the film is important, and it's a famous scene, but we have an entire section dedicated to explaining that in detail. Popcornduff (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point. I think it's important, and actually serves to further the plot. That's why I think it should stay in. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree that the red coat is an important thematic element of the film and have no problem with specifying the color of the coat in the plot summary, but the aside between the emdashes is textbook editorializing. The article itself expands on the thematic relevance later on through appropriately sourced commentary, and this is the correct approach. It is sufficient to just identify the red-coated girl and leave it at that. In fact, this article should follow the example at Don't Look Now which also uses the motif of a child in a red coat. The plot summary simply refers to the color of the coat and then explains the thematic relevance later in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The fact that the coat is in color in an otherwise black-and-white scene is what tells us it's red. Don't Look Now is not a black-and-white film so I don't see how that's related. But Betty, I know that you have worked on many film articles so I bow to your superior knowledge and will take it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: I originally wrote an extra thing arguing also that it was editorialising (it's bordering on purple prose imo), but decided not to push my luck.
@Diannaa: Thanks for removing this. Resolved now, but just for argument's sake, yes color is used to further the plot, but plot and furthering the plot are two different things. The use of color is just one of many techniques the film uses to tell a story, along with acting, editing, camerework, blah blah. It's not itself part of the plot, which is what we should be summarising. Popcornduff (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa I misclicked on the revert so I'm sorry there is no edit summary on my revert. I restored the content because it is about Bartov's criticism, not a controversy in Israel. I don't think this should be misrepresented as the source is an essay written by Bartov and he does not describe it in the way that your changes did. Seraphim System (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not stated in the sources that the song was removed from the Israeli version of the film as a result of Bartov's criticism, so I don't think moving the material from the "controversy" section to the "Critical response" section is appropriate. Therefore since we should only mention it once, it needs to be in the "Controversy" section, where the use of the song is already discussed.According to the article "Jerusalem of Gold", the song is not exclusively about the Six-Day War; only the last verse is about that topic, and that verse was not in the original version of the lyrics. It was added after the war. So to say the song is "about the 1967 war" is incorrect. The wording "unofficial anthem" comes from the article about the song. I've changed "set to a song about the 1967 War"  to "set to the song" but this might leave the reader confused as to why Bartov would find the use of the song as inappropriate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It is discussed in the source—this source is already cited in the article in the critical response section so I thought that would be a good place for it. "Unofficial anthem" is not really a good explanation of why it was criticized (or controversial) - this source explains it pretty well from diaspora and death to revival and "Jerusalem of Gold" - or the representation of the State of Israel as the "answer to the Holocaust". It isn't only Bartov. It's a significant point that I think should be included somewhere. [2] Seraphim System (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, because the point is indeed covered in the article, in controversy section, where it states "The song Yerushalayim Shel Zahav ("Jerusalem of Gold") is featured in the film's soundtrack and plays near the end of the film. This caused some controversy in Israel, as the song (which was written in 1967 by Naomi Shemer) is widely considered an informal anthem of the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War. In Israeli prints of the film the song was replaced with Halikha LeKesariya ("A Walk to Caesarea") by Hannah Szenes, a World War II resistance fighter." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please restore the addition of Swing Kids (film) to the See Also section. There is no good reason to remove this. The only other link in the section is 1993 films. This film is also a 1993 film about Nazi Germany. It's discussed in many books in the same discussion as Schindler's List, [3] - like Schindler's List it is a notable example of the representation of Nazi Germany in the media, as attested to by sources that discuss it along with Schindler's List and Number the Stars. It would also be appropriate to add Number the Stars or other significant examples that scholars like Lawrence Baron (a Professor Emeritus of Modern Jewish History) have highlighted and selected for discussion. Please don't default to removing improvements made by other editors.Seraphim System (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed it for the reason "not a good addition; there's thousands of films about Nazi Germany; what makes this one relevant to Schindler's List?" You've not convinced me with the one reference, which mentions numerous films on that one page alone. We should definitely not add obscure films like Swing Kids or Number the Stars while ignoring important works such as Sophie's Choice. My point is, we can't list all the Holocaust films, so I thin:k it's better not to list any (not even Sophie's Choice), because selecting which ones we might believe are connected to Schindler's List would amount to original research. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not WP:OR to add links to a See Also section. There are other sources also like [4] from Cambridge University Press - this source discusses it because both are 1993 films with unconventional "good German" heroes - specifically saying Swing Kids "Americanized" the heros, while Schindler's List did not. This could be added directly to the article and it still would not be WP:OR. It does not have to be box office hit to be worthy of inclusion. I added this one because it is relevant to this article and that is why there are WP:RS supporting the addition. Sophie's Choice might be a good addition too, especially if there are similar sources that attest to its significance in academic discussions.Seraphim System (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Diannaa about this. There are actually eleven WW2 films from 1993 so it seems rather arbitrary to just list one of them, and being released in the same year is not a sufficient reason alone for adding it to the section. There should be a clear and obvious reason either at this article or the other why we would include this in the section. There were many holocaust and Nazi Germany films made in other years so I think List of Holocaust films and possibly List of World War II films since 1990 would be better additions rather than adding random film links. Betty Logan (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I think both Sophie's Choice and Swing Kids have been either contrasted or compared with Schindler's List by scholars, so both would be find additions. I'm new to the article - can one of you point out where the discussion of the scholarship about Holocaust media is? This could be added there as well, especially the comparison with Sophie's Choice. Seraphim System (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
If you've got sourced scholarship that compares Schindler's List with Sophie's Choice or any other film, that might be a good addition, but being mentioned in the same book or being issued in the same year or being about the Holocaust is not enough for us to make the connection. To do so would be original research. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, if direct comparisons are being made then this should be integrated into the body of the article with the appropriate sourcing rather than just bunged into the "see also" section. Betty Logan (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Betty, I like your suggestion of adding  List of Holocaust films to the see-also. I am going to do that now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The movie was based on the FICTIONAL novel Schindler's Ark by Australian novelist Thomas Keneally. People think this movie was true story. It is not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by  24.89.229.157 (talk • contribs) 

That's right - it's a fictionalized account based on a historical novel. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
This article needs to make it clear that this is indeed fiction because there are people right here on wikipedia like Crboyer that believe this is a true story. Not to mention the thousands that have watched this film. 122.57.49.56 (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed based on a true story. As I said, calling it a fictional film makes it sound like the film doesn't exist. Furthermore, and most importantly, all narrative films are, by their nature, works of fiction. Crboyer (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It is not based on a true story it's based on a historical novel called Schindler's Ark by Australian novelist Thomas Keneally. This is a work of fiction where the plot takes place in a setting located in the past. 122.57.49.56 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The novel itself is based on a true man. Schindler did exist. Crboyer (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
That's right - the plot takes place in a setting located in the past. Schindler did exist. 122.57.49.56 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
How has a consensus not been reached? Linguistical 122.57.49.56 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

A novel is by definition fictional, pretty much. What non-fictional novels are there? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
That said, I would have expected a "Historical accuracy" section (per WP:FILMHIST) in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't find any sources that covered that point when I did the re-write in 2013. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
A drama is also by definition fictional. So a drama based on a novel is by definition fiction. Like many historical dramas, it's loosely based on true events. Perhaps a better word to use would be "fictionalized." That could be used in the third sentence, perhaps replacing " The film follows Oskar Schindler" with "It is a fictionalized account of wartime events in the life of Oskar Schindler". But we've essentially already said twice in the first two sentences that the film is fictional, by using the words "drama" and "novel". So I'm not sure this addition is necessary. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The IP's edit is completely unnecessary, and also grammatically incorrect. It is not a "fictional film" for a start, it is a real film that is a fictional depiction of true events. The lead describes it as a "historical period drama" which accurately sums up what type of film this is and that is sufficient. If it were a factual relaying of true events then it would be described as a documentary film just as Shoah (film) is. The IP is being silly and we shouldn't indulge this nonsense any longer. This article should only be semi-protected too, rather than fully protected, because as far as I can see it is only a single disruptive unregistered editor that is destabilizing it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Correct. Feral Pleasures with James Wilson is a fictional film. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for spelling out the point I was trying to make. Crboyer (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Nobody would be silly enough to see the word "fictional film" and automatically assume that this entire article is about a fake film that never existed. There is no need for the User to create such a problem because it's a well known film already. However it is sometimes mistaken for Shoah (film) and used as a documentary. "It is a fictionalized account of wartime events in the life of Oskar Schindler" would also be a good addition and "fictionalized" could be used instead of fictional.122.57.56.125 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
This is rather silly. It's based on real events. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you could be clearer on what if any amendment to the article you're in favor of. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm jumping in to not we've categorized it as a biographical film. I haven't checked ips edits but I'm willing to take Betty Logan at her word about the problems with the edits. However, we might want to consider whether or not we should have this categorized as a biographical film. I'm not sure where to draw the line but the film doesn't only follow events in Schindler's life, and despite the title, the central focus is not on the life of Schindler. The focus of the film actually jumps around all over the place, so I wouldn't really consider it a biographical film. Seraphim System (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Schindler's Ark is a work of fiction and was awarded the Los Angeles Times Book Prize for Fiction in 1983..  It is not vandalism to point this out.
Table43 (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Robin Williams says he did not phone Spielberg weekly; he only phoned once or twice. Source: Desta, Yohana. "How Robin Williams Helped Steven Spielberg Get Through Schindler's List". Vanity Fair. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The article already covered it sufficiently IMO, in proportion to the relevance it actually has to the subject matter. Wikipedia should be focusing on facts not anecdotes. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I added "historical fiction" to the introduction to ensure people understand that this is a work of fiction.

You don't need to do that; all novels are fiction. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel like saying “International Acclaim” is mentioning the countries outside the United States. People in the United States DID acclaim the film so… Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I live in Canada, so I don't feel that way. Changing to "worldwide"— Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I've commented this elsewhere, but I will write it here too:
Schindler's Ark should be referenced as a historical non-fiction novel.
The second sentence (as of time of writing) states: "It is based on the 1982 historical fiction novel Schindler's Ark by Australian novelist Thomas Keneally."

However, the page for Schindler's Ark references it as a  "Booker Prize-winning historical non-fiction novel" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_Ark).
As Schindler's Ark follows the definition of a non-fiction novel, this page should be changed to reflect so.
I tried to change the second sentence of this page to "It is based on the 1982 historical non-fiction novel Schindler's Ark by Australian novelist Thomas Keneally." but my change was reverted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:46:8000:76:70A5:4F8F:65A5:2D64 (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC) 

After looking at our article "non-fiction novel" seems a better fit.— Diannaa (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The Schindler's Ark article was changed to non-fiction novel on 27 November 2021 - previously it was listed for years as historical fiction.  Denisarona (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A historical novel uses primarily invented characters in historical settings, with perhaps a sprinking of historical characters. A Non-fiction novel uses primarily actual people and actual events and settings, with fictitious conversations and a sprinkling of fictitious events. So I now think "Non-fiction novel" is a better fit.— Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
FWIW the editor who made the change to Schindler's Ark did initiate a discussion at that article's Talk page. Thus far, 21 days later, nobody's responded. DonIago (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry to post about such a minor thing, however the heading referenced above has a space at the beginning that puts it out of alignment when compared to other headings. 
I used the source editor and previewed my change which showed the space removed, however after publishing it looks the same. The source now shows no gap between the double bracket,  i.e.  [[Effect.
Is this viewable and/or fixable for anyone else? I haven't made too many edits before and I don't want to look like I'm trying to break things! Thank you in advance for putting up with my ramblings! Mrsguyliner (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It only shows up in mobile view. The problem is caused by the diacritic in "Kraków". See the test edits at User:Diannaa/sandbox— Diannaa (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

"and was eventually shown in 500 theaters (including 80 paid for by municipal authorities)" when I was in school, we were bussed class for class to the cinema for a mandatory showing of this movie. i guess one would be hard pressed to find (english) sources for that, but that explains the municipial part. 46.15.192.225 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

They don't have to be English sources, but they do have to be reliable published sources. - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)