Talk:A Simple Plan (film)

message: Interesting discussion which directly concerns this section over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Adaptation_differences. As it is, it's original research as far as I'm concerned, no refs at all. Still, be interesting to see how the discussion goes. Geoff B (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences section

message: I've recently seen the film and find its story worth of a better description -- however I only edited a small and obviously erroneous part of the Plot section. I didn't want to fatten the film's portrayal into being meticulous and boring. But wouldn't it be nice to create some sections about recurring clues and pacing? Maybe I'll do it myself if you affirm the validity of my point -- so its not for appreciation that I beg :).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.141.133 (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing story

message: Can we please have a discussion about this unreferenced section before we get into this again?  Pretty please? Millahnna (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research again 

message: Looking over the history of this article, I see that there was a long edit war (from July 2010 to March 2011) over the possible inclusion of a section entitled "Differences between the film and the novel".  The final version of that section can be seen here .  The deletionist side eventually won the war.
Can I ask what the argument against including this section was?  My apologies if I am re-opening old wounds, but this eight-month-long edit war was conducted without any discussion on the Talk page (aside from the request for discussion by Millahnna above).
The edit history merely refers to "original research".  I agree that material violating the WP:NOR policy should rightly be deleted, and the final paragraph of the deleted section ("Overall, the changes make the finished story less violent....") is clearly analysis and thus forbidden by the NOR rule.  But the rest of the section does not seem to be problematic.
Consider:  The article A Simple Plan (novel) contains a detailed summary of the novel without any references or citations.  The article A Simple Plan (film) contains a detailed summary of the film without any references or citations.  If both of these are acceptable, how could the deleted section (aside from its final paragraph) be objectionable?  The WP:NOR policy states that "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify" and which are "supported by the [primary] source" are permitted by the NOR rule.  In the novel, Hank kills Jacob immediately after Lou's death, while in the film Jacob is killed immediately after the deaths of the sheriff and the fake FBI agent.  Is there any doubt that "any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge" would agree that this constitutes a difference between the novel and the film? — Lawrence King (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As two months have passed and no one has objected, I am restoring the deleted section, minus the final pargraph (which was in violation of WP:NOR). — Lawrence King (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware, this discussion of the guidelines still applies.  Any discussion of the differences between a film and its original source must be accompanied by third-party sources and not simply the observation of editors.  All such observation and analysis is original research.  The fact that the plot summaries, in both the film and the novel articles, have no references is irrelevant, as summaries are not required to have references.  What would work is a section on the writing of the screenplay, in which the person who adapted the novel explains why they made certain editorial decisions, assuming sources exist that can be used to make such statements.  But a free-standing "differences between..." section with no sources is simply the result of an editor's observation. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for supplying the link; I hadn't come across that.  I was aware of the general NOR rule, but not this specific rule.  The link you supplied is a discussion from 2008 on what the policy ought to be.  The actual policy (which may have resulted from that discussion) turns out to be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Adaptation from source material.  The key sentences, emphasis added, are these:  "Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged."  So this isn't actually a violation of NOR, because if it were, it would be forbidden -- not merely "especially discouraged".  However, as you say, it would be much better if we could cite statements by the filmmakers about the changes they made, and why they made them.  Do you know of any such source? — Lawrence King (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of film and novel 

message: Suggest removing the scholarly bullshit about sign systems and the western canon. It's much too esoteric and in-crowd, and adds nothing to our understanding of the film. Like much recent critical discourse, it acts essentially to highlight the ingenuity of the critic by appending a lot of unprovable guff to a text, that is, it is not fulfilling the ordinary function of criticism, to clarify a text (text in this sense including film), to show what else it might contain, or how its internal economy operates, but rather simply to annex the text to a pre-existing belief system. To be clear: the quotation does not illuminate the viewer's experience of the film, it dims it, by refocussing attention on the critical system.  If the said system had been religious, say, Islam, or Christianity, it would be obvious what a lot of hokum it was as a pretence at film criticism; but call it a sign system, and everybody genuflects and forgets to think. If a critical quote is needed, I would suggest quoting a movie critic, not an academic.Theonemacduff (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  scholarly nonsense should be removed 

message: As this article is currently fully protected, I request that an admin remove the "differences between the film and the novel" section as original research and analysis.  Such sections are only allowed if they are sourced to a third party, not when they are analysis on the part of an editor. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. This seemed like a fairly straightforward violation of Wikipedia:No original research, so I have removed the section. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A Simple Plan (film). 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/20150204081248/http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=58%2F to http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=58%2F
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) 14:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified