Talk:The Ugly American

message: I removed this statement from the end of the article: Ironically, the "ugly American" of the book title actually referred to one -powered water pump.  It is argued in the book that the communists were successful because they practiced tactics similar to Atkins'.  It's poorly written, and makes little sense in the context of the current article (that is, Atkins is not described within the current version of the article). --(Mingus ah um 20:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A tip of the hat to Dpbsmith, who has cleaned up and restored the statement.  --(Mingus ah um 21:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning Up/A Minor Edit

message: I removed
:In other words, the title "Ugly American" is a double entendre. It refers both to Americans who behave badly when they go overseas (and may also refer to the behavior of the British when they settled in Southeast Asia); but also to those who, like the intelligent but unattractive Atkins, are perceptive and helpful to the indigenous peoples. Many people who have not read the book are unaware of this double meaning
for these reasons:
a) First, the phrase "ugly American" is not used to refer "those who, like the intelligent but unattractive Atkins, are perceptive and helpful to the indigenous peoples, and never has been. Outside of its use as a book title, "ugly American" means Americans who behave arrogantly overseas.
b) Second, even if the phrase had two different meanings, that would not make it a double entendre. A double entendre is not a phrase that can have more than one meaning; it is a phrase that is knowingly used with both an innocent and a risqué meaning at the same time. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardly a "double-entendre" 

message: Since books and movies are not the same thing, both the book and the movie based on the book need separate articles. both are notable. if the phrase gets a separate article... I see this a lot on WP, where books are given brief mention in an article dominated by the film. unless the book was truly obscure both before and after the film (rare), this problem should not exist. i may fix it (i have a copy of the paperback)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not the book and film sections are separated into two articles or not, I am troubled by undue weight of the section about the film.  The book was of major importance in igniting a debate in U.S. diplomatic circles in the Kennedy administration and beyond, which has had repercussions for six decades.  The failure of the FBI to hire appropriate Arabic translators in the wake of 9/11 (much less have them on hand before that) is due to the same failures identified by the book 43 years earlier.  The film version was a forgettable effort which got mixed reviews, did poorly at the box office, and garnered no awards.  It's notable chiefly for the presence of its star Marlon Brando (who was nominated, but did not receive, a Golden Globe that year).  The film was totally swamped by other films that year, and does not appear in the top 25 grossing films of 1963. This is not to say that the film is not notable enough for an article on WP, but having the article equally divided between the book and the movie seems grossly out of balance with respect to notability. Mathglot (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I've tried to redress this somewhat by beefing up the book section, adding several subsections (including "Background history" and "Impact") to give a sense of the Cold War context in which the book appeared, and the instant bestseller status and profound impact the book had both in popular, and diplomatic circles.  More could be added, but this is a start. Mathglot (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Much appreciation to  for much effective work developing the article, which is now quite respectable! It does seem, however, that most books that have been made into films have separate articles for the films. It easily meets the criteria in Notability (films), though a separate article is certainly not mandated. Any ideas? ch (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  and also for your efforts on the film side, including sources.  I think maybe you're right, and they should be two separate articles, because as the film side starts to grow I worry about WP:UNDUE--that is, the rough proportion of the space in the article devoted to the two parts giving undue weight to the film compared to the book.  And I do understand the ease, especially these days, of seeing a film online, but it's hard to overstate the importance and impact of the book; a "proper" distribution of relative weight would relegate the film to a footnote--or conversely, expand the book part of the article considerably.  Or split them into two, as you suggested.  Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Total agreement with Mathglot's well-put view that the book is more important than the film, as is often the case -- see Moby Dick (disambiguation), for an even more clear contrast! But the film still easily passes the Notability bar, so I would be happy to see the article split. ch (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the film is notable (based on coverage from reliable sources and film distribution and reviews) and if someone decides to create a Split proposal, I'm pre-registering my vote as Yes (support for content split) for those reasons as well as ones previously expressed. Mathglot (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Book, movie

message: The section headed "plot summary" does not summarise the plot. 27.33.12.65 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary