Talk:Raging Bull

message: I'm removing the link to the poster site. It's akin to an advertisement, and the brief synopsis it gives is redundant.--Pewpewlazers 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Link

message: Needs extensive revision, picks up on miniscule details whilst ignoring much more significant plot details (e.g. the fights with Sugar Ray). Several mistakes ("second glitch of Vickie") and totally omits the end of the film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.67 (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: This film is extensively studied in a lot of academic circles, especially film schools, most notably for the sound design.  Is any of this wikipedia worthy?  I'm talking about how certain sound effects are used, such as the sound of breaking glass for camera flashes and the like.  Also, is the fact that Joe Pesci's ribs were broken in real life during one of the sparring scenes notable for addition here? (just as long as the source is cited?)Toquinha 18:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also wanted to add that the trivia-esque comment, "DeNiro gained 60 pounds to prepare for his role, more than any other actor has gained or lost for a role" is untrue and has been appropriately deleted. Jjmckool (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: The topic of analysis on this page is profane, biased, and hardly relevant. Please change it.
Agreed. I haven't seen it, I was just passing by as a fan of some other Scorsese films. Wikipedia should hold a neutral opinion, and that said stuff like "it's an extremely thematic film", and the comparisons didn't seem relevant at all. It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: I have not seen the film. In turn I have not read the plot description. Criticize me if you will for taking concern in a film I haven't seen, but this seems far from "B Class", especially after I deleted the slightly irrelevant "Analysis" section. I put this up for reassesment, and would feel it appropriate if it were changed to "Start".
P.S. I'm sure it's an amazing film and all, but the article had some POV issues.
It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: B Class?

message: I don't see how the opinions of sixteen year olds are relevant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.235.0 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Myspace Poll

message: The writing is very sloppy, confusing, and in many cases downright misleading. In particular, it's full of ambiguous referents and statements that seem very much out of place. 80.235.59.103 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sloppy writing

message: it's the name of a ride in six flags. so it has to be changed!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.12.238 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This Title shouldnt be used

message: I have no idea who wrote these references, or who wrote the book, but currently, there are four different authors' names cited for 'The Making of Raging Bull', and surely only one (or at most two) of them could be right.
That book also apparently includes some erroneous information, as cited in the Wikipedia article: "However, when it was revealed that John Hinckley, Jr.'s assassination attempt of the then president Ronald Reagan had been influenced by his love for Taxi Driver, this hurt the chances for [Raging Bull] to pick up the Oscar."
That isn't possible. Reagan was shot March 30, 1981 -- the very day the Oscars were to be held. (The ceremony was postponed until the next day.) The Oscar ballots had already been submitted and tabulated. People may have been upset with Scorsese, but it was far too late for Oscar voters to take it out on "Raging Bull."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.151.239 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: references to book The Making of Raging Bull

message: RfC: Discussion of Inclusion of a new Themes section with rudimentary comments on LaMotta's Autobiography as the primary source of the film's main themes. 
Two week old discussion between multiple editors is at a standstill concerning if a Themes section should be included on this wikipage. Rudimentary start version should mention what themes and parts of LaMotta's autobiography were used in the making of Raging Bull. Section edit is included on Talk page entry immediately above. AutoMamet (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: While a survey or RfC isn't a vote, per se, it's not appropriate for AutoMamet to make it look (probably unintentionally), like there are 2 editors supporting inclusion of this text. So I just made a slight formatting adjustment so that both of AM's points lie in the same bullet point. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the two contradictory votes, since AutoMamet said they were intended as examples or "banners". Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Note: In posting the RfC, the original pair of Support-Oppose headings were not listed for the purpose of posting a comment but only for the purpose of providing banners for the two categories so that participants could begin to list and append their comments. When I posted the two banners I was not making any statement of my own comment and nor did I in any way mean to suggest that I Oppose the inclusion of the autobiography edit being recommended even though I signed it following the format instructions for starting an RfC. The initial post of the pair was as banners pro and contra to which participants would then append their own comments. Two days later, I posted the sole position of Support next to the banner to date, and my reason for it. The two-banner format is the standard one recommended on the RfC start-up page for all editors. AutoMamet (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair; I didn't think that you were deliberately trying to be deceptive. I've never actually seen a set-up like you had; I think the "two-banner format" you're talking about means that people often put three level three headings (3 equal signs); one for support, one for oppose, and one for threaded discussion. They don't generally put a "null" bulleted point. But everything is good as long as we know what was actually intended. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

text: RfCs generally run for 30 days, so just leave this open. We have a bot that automatically notifies random people who've signed up, so it is not unusual to have comments trickle in slowly over time. Of course, if the RfC were to close with no more change, the consensus would be obvious: not to include the suggested section. I'll take a look at the Departed talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Regarding AutoMamet's "Post-script": I just have to point this out as yet another blatant and massive misrepresentation of the truth. "[O]ther editors have taken it upon themselves to make multiple copy-pastes of it on The Departed Talk page .... It was copied four times throughout the Talk page on The Departed" No, Gareth Griffith-Jones made ONE single verbatim copy of it when he fixed the format following Qwyrxian's lead. "[A]s a continuing criticism of me by you in spite of your explanation of it." No, it was never presented as a criticism (just a page cleanup and clarification), much less as one by Qwyrxian; it was acknowledged as being, as the edit summary distinctly indicates, "probably unintentional". "[A]lso in the form of a harsh reprimand against me." Nowhere at all in the remediation of your formatting has there been any "harsh reprimand" of you. In fact, quite the reverse: It has been acknowledged over and over that your misleading formatting was "probably unintentional", "understandable", and "inadvertent". We don't expect people who are creating their first RfC to get it perfect, but it was best for the editing to be normalized for the reasons given by Qwyrxian (and by the way, Qwyrxian's exact words were used). Softlavender (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I have attempted to counsel Softlavender, and asked that s/he removed points 2-4 above, but s/he refused. If you wish to pursue sanctions, the correct place would be at WP:ANI. However, I do have to point out that you also have some problems above--specifically, I don't think any possible reading of Softlavender's actions, even though wrong, could be called a "deviant fixation"; also, there is no requirement that anyone get my permission to copy my words--the CC-BY-SA license, in fact, means anyone is always free to do that with anything you or I write, here or anywhere else on WP. But, overall, I do feel that you bringing this matter to RfC (and at the other page) was the correct move on your part, and not in any way disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Your perception is, only partially correct. First of all, admins don't close most RfCs--only those that are very complex, have lots of discussion, have potential to have a wide effect, and/or are very close. None of those is the case here. Second, an admin would never weigh in the rules of an outside body, as that's not relevant. Third, even if they did, that wouldn't be relevant here, as the question isn't really about whether the material goes in at all, but rather whether the extent that you wish to include it is appropriate. While this is a policy-based question (WP:UNDUE and WP:OR play in here), it's certainly not a cut-and-dried case where policy obviously favors your interpretation. Admins cannot super-vote; they may discount comments/arguments that are not based in policy, but, at least at first glance, I don't see any arguments like that here. Finally, I recommend that you not impugn other editors comments by calling them bandwagoning, as quite a number of them appear to have well-thought out reasons; those reasons may ultimately be incorrect, and ultimately not be consensus, but that doesn't mean that they aren't considered decisions made based upon other people's interpretation of policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

text: That discussion has nothing to do with this page; please don't cross discussions like this; I'll make a comment over there. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Your edit is just plain wrong.  This film is not based on the trilogy, it is based on the first film.  You have been revered multiple times because you are factually incorrect. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

text: *What kind of concerns? AutoMamet (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Discussion of  Inclusion of a new Theme section for Raging Bull 

message: *Support Academy Awards for film scripts are divided into two categories and two separate awards; Those for Adapted Film Scripts and those for Original Film Scripts. In the case of Raging Bull, both the director (Scorsese) and the lead actor (DeNiro) have indicated that the LaMotta autobiography was the source adapted for the film. Credit where credit is due. LaMotta wrote the book that made the movie about his life! AutoMamet (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: While a survey or RfC isn't a vote, per se, it's not appropriate for AutoMamet to make it look (probably unintentionally), like there are 2 editors supporting inclusion of this text. So I just made a slight formatting adjustment so that both of AM's points lie in the same bullet point. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the two contradictory votes, since AutoMamet said they were intended as examples or "banners". Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Note: In posting the RfC, the original pair of Support-Oppose headings were not listed for the purpose of posting a comment but only for the purpose of providing banners for the two categories so that participants could begin to list and append their comments. When I posted the two banners I was not making any statement of my own comment and nor did I in any way mean to suggest that I Oppose the inclusion of the autobiography edit being recommended even though I signed it following the format instructions for starting an RfC. The initial post of the pair was as banners pro and contra to which participants would then append their own comments. Two days later, I posted the sole position of Support next to the banner to date, and my reason for it. The two-banner format is the standard one recommended on the RfC start-up page for all editors. AutoMamet (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair; I didn't think that you were deliberately trying to be deceptive. I've never actually seen a set-up like you had; I think the "two-banner format" you're talking about means that people often put three level three headings (3 equal signs); one for support, one for oppose, and one for threaded discussion. They don't generally put a "null" bulleted point. But everything is good as long as we know what was actually intended. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

text: RfCs generally run for 30 days, so just leave this open. We have a bot that automatically notifies random people who've signed up, so it is not unusual to have comments trickle in slowly over time. Of course, if the RfC were to close with no more change, the consensus would be obvious: not to include the suggested section. I'll take a look at the Departed talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Regarding AutoMamet's "Post-script": I just have to point this out as yet another blatant and massive misrepresentation of the truth. "[O]ther editors have taken it upon themselves to make multiple copy-pastes of it on The Departed Talk page .... It was copied four times throughout the Talk page on The Departed" No, Gareth Griffith-Jones made ONE single verbatim copy of it when he fixed the format following Qwyrxian's lead. "[A]s a continuing criticism of me by you in spite of your explanation of it." No, it was never presented as a criticism (just a page cleanup and clarification), much less as one by Qwyrxian; it was acknowledged as being, as the edit summary distinctly indicates, "probably unintentional". "[A]lso in the form of a harsh reprimand against me." Nowhere at all in the remediation of your formatting has there been any "harsh reprimand" of you. In fact, quite the reverse: It has been acknowledged over and over that your misleading formatting was "probably unintentional", "understandable", and "inadvertent". We don't expect people who are creating their first RfC to get it perfect, but it was best for the editing to be normalized for the reasons given by Qwyrxian (and by the way, Qwyrxian's exact words were used). Softlavender (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I have attempted to counsel Softlavender, and asked that s/he removed points 2-4 above, but s/he refused. If you wish to pursue sanctions, the correct place would be at WP:ANI. However, I do have to point out that you also have some problems above--specifically, I don't think any possible reading of Softlavender's actions, even though wrong, could be called a "deviant fixation"; also, there is no requirement that anyone get my permission to copy my words--the CC-BY-SA license, in fact, means anyone is always free to do that with anything you or I write, here or anywhere else on WP. But, overall, I do feel that you bringing this matter to RfC (and at the other page) was the correct move on your part, and not in any way disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Your perception is, only partially correct. First of all, admins don't close most RfCs--only those that are very complex, have lots of discussion, have potential to have a wide effect, and/or are very close. None of those is the case here. Second, an admin would never weigh in the rules of an outside body, as that's not relevant. Third, even if they did, that wouldn't be relevant here, as the question isn't really about whether the material goes in at all, but rather whether the extent that you wish to include it is appropriate. While this is a policy-based question (WP:UNDUE and WP:OR play in here), it's certainly not a cut-and-dried case where policy obviously favors your interpretation. Admins cannot super-vote; they may discount comments/arguments that are not based in policy, but, at least at first glance, I don't see any arguments like that here. Finally, I recommend that you not impugn other editors comments by calling them bandwagoning, as quite a number of them appear to have well-thought out reasons; those reasons may ultimately be incorrect, and ultimately not be consensus, but that doesn't mean that they aren't considered decisions made based upon other people's interpretation of policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

text: That discussion has nothing to do with this page; please don't cross discussions like this; I'll make a comment over there. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Your edit is just plain wrong.  This film is not based on the trilogy, it is based on the first film.  You have been revered multiple times because you are factually incorrect. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *Are there concerns for the civility of this discussion, and, for assessing the need to study the Autobiography by LaMotta to make effective recommendations. AutoMamet (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *What kind of concerns? AutoMamet (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Raging Bull. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1953094,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Raging Bull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119162313/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hbio.htm to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hbio.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.parajanov.com/institute
*Added  tag to http://www.mascagni.org/faq
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just enjoyed the movie again.  Seen it countless times.
Question: Has anyone considered writing a WP article for actor Johnny Barnes?  There's a nice 2005 article from the NY Times <https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/nyregion/fighting-a-bull-and-the-fear-of-obscurity.html>  Considering his authenticity and important role in the film, isn't it worth a stub?  Gprobins (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sugar Ray Robinson / Johnny Barnes 

message: 1998 or 1999. Which is it? We have both in the article. Or are we citing two different editions. If so, why, is one a revised one or a mere reprint? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biskind, Peter, ''Easy Riders, Raging Bulls''