Talk:The Good Shepherd (film)

message: "In the scene where young Edward remembers the day of his father's suicide, he states that his father was an admiral. However the the uniform shown is that of a Navy Captain."
Where the error mentioned is a misspelled word on the teletype machine it was really quite common. You had one chance to get the spelling right. You could not take back and correct it. As long as the meaning could be determined you went on with the rest of the message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.141.55 (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: error 

message: The "errors" section of the article says that it's unlikely that Edward's underling would be such a low-ranking non-commissioned officer if he were a university graduate with five years in the military. I think that statement is true, but it's an intentional error on the part of the director in order to underscore the WASP-dominated structure of the OSS/CIA. The underling is obviously from a Catholic and ethnic background, so when Edward comes along he's "naturally" superior to the man who has much more experience and similar educational qualifications.
Only in the past century has the military really changed this (and the movie is an anachronism since it takes place during WWII)--in the past, teenage sons of wealth and nobility, even without a degree, would have regularly outranked far more experienced career soldiers and sailors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.205.178 (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is in America, there is no nobility. It is pretty hard to be an officer without a degree. yes officers tend to be younger, wealthier and less experienced than their NCOs(the system is based on this). 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fordham graduate 

message: Who sent the pictures of Edward and Laura to Clover? Her brother was already dead and I assumed nobody he works with really cared about his personal life.
Best guess: His son. 68.146.22.0 05:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affair pictures? 

message: can't stand these really - but here's the tag from the article;
now hopefully someone will go do something! don't just sit there! - Purples 02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a moved tag...... 

message: I see that it didn't take long for some people to bloat this plot summary all over again.  Someone has even added the ponderous quote from the CIA building entrance and inserted OR in the form of who the characters are "loosely" based on (not allowed).  Does anyone actually get that a plot summary is not a replacement for watching the film? Nightshift, are there any quick and easy ways to fix this?  I really don't want to have to do it all over again. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive plot summary again--again!

message: Nightshift, a certain other editor with a name beginning with Z basically re-added the bloat manually a few months ago--in fact, he added even more and then kept adding. I'm beginning to think the article needs to be protected. Some people just refuse to respect the guidelines for film plot. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear ZarhanFastfire, I have no intention of editing this plot summary, in view of your care for it. But I would comment to you that I am not too quick-witted and so I like to read details in Wikipedia plot summaries; I find detail helpful for my slow wits, and they are hard to come by anywhere else. I don't like to see all those 'shorten plot' templates. You are expert on the Wiki policy, and do a great job, and I have no intention of doing anything about this.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive plot summar again--again! (reprise)

message: (copied from Jmg38's page)
Hello, I noticed you've been busy undoing a lot of work by editors on several film pages. There is no reason why film plots cannot have either inline notes as to who plays whom, nor blue links to relevant topics within the plot summary. It is not, as you believe, overlinking, and I ask that you please revert the pages where you have been removing the aforesaid content. In case you are wondering, I have already checked with an experienced editor in the film project (User:Niteshift36) that these are not examples of overlinking. Have a good rest of the day. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Continued discussion at User talk:Niteshift36#Redlink User contributions Jmg38 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. Please see my response there. Per WP:BRD suggest you unrevert until there is a consensus. We are still in the 'D' part of this process, as two editors (myself and Niteshift) disagree with your definition of overlinking in this article. Reread Niteshift's response as I think you have misread it.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Specifically, he said this: "But we have to keep in mind that all English speakers aren't Americans and won't necessarily know what we think is "common knowledge". I've supported keeping this plot summary brief longer than anyone. Please don't confuse plot summary and wikilinking issues." I've restored the links etc., as you haven't told us why they are inappropriate beyond that you do not like them. Please point to a specific policy stating how all or any of those were overlinks. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing "overlinking" and actors' names from film plots

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.com/2013/08/amera-ziganii-rao-alchemy-liberation_12.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Sam Sailor 21:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed