lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Warlock (1959 film)

message: "Unjustly so" doesn't sound very objective, alas.
--Andersonblog 01:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm about to remove that and a couple of other things as well. --ForDorothy 00:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity? 

message: Anyone else here who thinks that Aurum's characterisation of the two main protagonists as queers is unsubstantiated nonsense? Did I see a curtailed version or is the only alleged allusion the "silk sheets"? What Aurum claims does not come to mind at all. By the way - did I misunderstand some other "open depictions" like Dances With Wolves & Kicking Bird or Rambo & Trautman? 
Christian Storm (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't Aurum's characterisation be removed? 

message: We’ve largely moved on from the homophobia expressed in the first 2009 comment above. Having not seen the movie before, I was struck by the almost blatant homoerotic undertone to the Quinn/Fonda relationship. Quite extraordinary for a film of its age. It also looks to be pretty well attested to in a range of sources, although there are quite a few blogs. I’ll look to add something in, but it would be good if other editors have any strong R/S we could use. There must be some film criticism.KJP1 (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay subtext
Talk:The Best Man (1964 film)

message: The last sentence in the Plot section reads: "It puts an end to both their chances, but unites the party around an electable candidate." This is true but misses the point. The title of the film is pointedly ironic, and this is characterized by the text at the top of the film's poster. The candidate that finally gets the nomination is weak - clearly not the best man. Gore Vidal's point is that our electoral system makes it impossible, or at least improbably, to select the best man and we end up with "an electable candidate" instead. The poisons that Vidal identifies are character assassination (personal attacks, ad hominem, etc.) and the unfortunate publicly accepted notion that a candidate cannot have any flaws. Every great man has flaws. Our system filters them out.
Perhaps a better wording of the last line might be: "It puts an end to both their chances, but unites the party around an electable candidate, but most certainly not "The Best Man." Menomena 9 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot
Talk:There Was a Crooked Man... (1970 film)

message: looking at page views this film might be better with (1970 film) in the title. The nursery rhyme also goes ..., and the 1970 film in many book sources doesn't have the dots. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Three dots may not say "Kirk Douglas" to some readers
Talk:The Swarm (1978 film)

message: Can someone maybe write the plot summery??
:No, we cun't. Gravitoweak (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: So, The Swarm (1978) predicted the murder hornet killer bees from Asia is in America.
How would you feel? --Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predicition
Talk:The Official Story

message: I did the bulk of the work on this article (you, Cop, made good copy edits) and hence I did not cite the "Offical Version" from IMDb, that citation was for everything else before.  
I found the GB item elsewhere.  I thought it was such a minor item I did not source.  If every sentence/item on Wiki had to be sourced, well wow!  I'm curious as to your research method.  I found a few souces in one minute.  The Great Britan note can be questioned, I guess, but since Time Out London names it as the name of the film, that enough for me. Luigibob 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Sorry about that, I can't understand why I missed those sources. The reason I was being picky is that I'm finding IMDB quite unreliable about international titles, and some of the so-called "international English titles" that they list seem to be just alternate translations added by IMDB users, not actual release titles (remember that IMDB data is added the same way as Wikipedia, by anon users who can make mistakes). That's why we needed a better source for this. But anyway, cheers. Cop 633 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Official Version

message: This site: [] has this movie.Agre22 (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Video with this movie
Talk:Meteor (film)

message: About to change channels because it's so dreadful, but it's a little startling to see the spaceship destroyed at the beginning of the film being called Challenger II 4 years before the initial launch and 7 years before the catastrophe of the real Challenger. Karinagw (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenger 2

message: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=W7EwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=B_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6893,2810622&dq=meteor+connery&hl=en
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hqMyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4O4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1133,366848&dq=meteor+sean-connery&hl=en
::I think these can potential add to and enrich our article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporaneous movie reviews. 
Talk:Gideon's Trumpet

message: This happens a lot, where a book and movie are combined in one article. they are usually both notable, since a book made into a movie shows notability for the book, and movies are usually notable if made from bestsellers.(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate articles for book and movie needed
Talk:List of Public Service Corporation of New Jersey precursors

message: *This page needs heavy work, considering that every single article on this list is missing. AndyZ 21:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

message: The Public Service Corporation of New Jersey was NOT specifically a Street Railroad Company. PSCNJ was originally part of a network owned and operated by the National Public Service Corporation, The electric monopoly that was intended to do for Electricity what Standard Oil had done for Petroleum. NPS was largely the idea of Samuel Insull, and it was a parallen attempt at centralizing the electric industry with that of Edison's empire. The national symbol of NPS was the triangle inside a circle, a symbol best remembered on the streetcars of the various Public Service streetcar operations around the nation. Chief amoung those were PSCNJ, the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Public Service of New Hampshire, Northern Indiana Public Service Co., and others.
Public Service of New Jersey divorced itself from the rail and bus operations in 1952, when Public Service Coordinated Transport was created as a seperate company not affiliated with Public Service Electric & Gas. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY
Talk:Patience D. Roggensack

message: One wouldn't know from this article of the numerous reports in reliable sources of widespread criticism of Justice Roggensack and other members of the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court regarding their ethics and the quality of their decisions, using such terms as "hyper-partisan", "far right wing", and "ridiculous". Particularly, Wisconsin came the closest to overturning the 2020 election in favor of Trump ... the Republican-held legislature wasn't able to do so due to the Governor's veto, so the WI Supreme Court took this up, but narrowly failed to do so, with Justice Ruggensack standing with the minority in the 4-3 decision: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/wisconsin-supreme-court-upholds-joe-bidens-win/6529642002/
This is part of a pattern of decisions that are widely seen as consistently favoring a particular political party. Her Ballotpedia page (https://ballotpedia.org/Patience_Roggensack) is relevant in this regard. Jibal (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  widespread and reported perceptions are missing
Talk:Holland (disambiguation)

message: It is more accurate to say that "Britain" is sometimes used to refer to the United Kingdom as they are both basically the same country.
However, England is not the same as Britain or the United Kingdom and it is totally inaccurate to use these terms interchangeably.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.178.236 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's the point exactly: it is in precisely the same sense not correct to use "Holland" for The Netherlands.--MWAK (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, 'Britain' or 'Great Britain' is not the correct name for the United Kingdom either, because it refers to the main island and does not include Northern Ireland. But this gets confused even more than the Netherlands/Holland thing. SeverityOne (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  England or Britain
Talk:Home for the Holidays (1995 film)

message: This is unsourced and in list form so I've moved it here until it can be properly cited and integrated into other sections of the article.--J.D. (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 
Talk:The Hucksters

message: It's hard to understand why there is no entry on the novel this movie is based on given the sensational things this entry says about it. P Reader EO11 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Entry on Novel
Talk:Gradius II

message: I changed the introduction and the template to list the title in Japanese first as the translation of the Japanese title is not official and not generally used, especially since it was called Vulcan Venture in the West anyway. --Zilog Jones 21:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese first

message: for Gam*Boy(Master System Korea) and MSX.--178.24.30.36 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Released also 
Talk:Run Silent, Run Deep

message: I see this repeatedly, and it always strikes me as odd, that a bestselling novel and a major film adaption are combined in a single article. Unless the book is really obscure, made notable only after a film comes out, or the film version was low budget, tanked, and was never written about, the two should always get separate articles. im surprised no one has even brought this up. Needless to say, if i dont see arguments to keep them together, i may break out the book into its own article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate book and film articles 

message: The African American actor Joel Fluellen plays a member of the crew.  Impossible in WW2 and very uncommon in the submarine service even at the time the film was made.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.132.22 (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied this comment to Run Silent, Run Deep (1958 film) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible in the WW2 US Navy 

message: The "Plot" section begins, "Soon before the attack on Pearl Harbor." This conflicts with the at least the 1983 edition of the book and is historically problematical.  
* The first paragraph of the 1983 edition of the novel includes, "The story ... begins ... right after Christmas, 1941."  
* If the story begins before December 7, 1941, it suggests that President Roosevelt was acting to provoke the Japanese into attacking the US.  There has been some suggestion that the Roosevelt administration was indeed trying to provoke an attack that they could claim was unprovoked.  However, it seems unlikely that US submarines would have been engaged in open hostilities against Japanese shipping prior to December 8, 1941.  This would be particularly true for actions inside Japanese territorial waters like the Bungo straights, which was the scene for a substantial portion of the story.  
* I couldn't conveniently access a copy of the original 1955 edition, but I'd be surprised if Beach, an active duty Navy officer at that time, would have suggested that the Roosevelt administration was actively trying to provoke the Japanese into an attack something like what occurred on December 7, 1941.  
* Similarly, I'd be surprised if the producers of a movie in 1958 would have suggested that the US had been actively using submarines against Japanese shipping prior to Pearl Harbor. 
Accordingly, I'm changing that one line to read, "The story begins right after Christmas, 1941." DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified some of the timing based on the first edition. It helps to read more than the first page. There's a back story. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before or after the [[attack on Pearl Harbor]]?
Talk:White Men Can't Jump

message: Should this be classed as a buddy movie? The nature of Billy and Sidney's itneraction probably fits that definition? --MartinUK 13:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it odd that a movie should be based on racist assumptions and stereotypes? Was there any criticism of this aspect of the film?  If so this should be referred to.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddies

message: Was this the source of Yo Mama jokes? Was it really the inspiration for the MTV show? That doesn't sound right. It might have helped popularize those jokes, but it's not such a direct relation to the joke or the show, as far as I know. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. Yo Mama jokes have been hood since the 1970s 23.251.197.123 (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yo Mama 

message: ok Billy making a bet for his half of the tournament winnings is so ludicrous but ... BUT why on earth did Sidney take that bet? APPARENTLY Billy Hoyle dunks in the final game for the final point proving that he so easily could have won that $10k. WHY DID SIDNEY TAKE THAT BET? Both are mad men for that bet! I think it's ridiculous that Sidney would even accept that bet, yet he does! 142.161.119.146 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dunk Bet
Talk:The People vs. Larry Flynt

message: I'm curious why this entry doesn't have, as most similar entries would, a section on areas in which it veers from history.
For example, Alan Isaacman was not shot with Flynt. In fact, he wasn't even the lawyer in that case. Flynt had local counsel, Gene Reeves, Jr.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.162.238 (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, there *was* such a section, but it was deleted in this edit a year ago, since it cited no sources.  Rwessel (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artistic Liscence 

message: Apokrif (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "With his success comes enemies" a correct phrasing?
Talk:Public scandal of the Dreyfus Affair

message: "...condemned to pay 30,000 francs ($6,000) damages." This should be given a date context.  e.g. "(then $6,000)". Rich   Farmbrough. 21:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Money

message: Doesn't seem to mention at all the traditionalist Catholic papers, and their often virulent anti-Jewish hate rhetoric... AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Press

message: This article needs serious revision.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.186.213 (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Not good
Talk:The Fortune Cookie

message: It was Gingrich who had the settlement check that he brought to Hinkle's house and It was "The Dark Angel" not "The Black Avenger." near the end of the film  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, BMK (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Points
Talk:Tanzeem-e-Islami

message: Removed honorific titles such as SWT, "The Prophet", and the like. Still needs to be NPOV'ed. ---Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think thesis sections should be removed. They have no relevance to the article
Hame arbi shikna h 2409:4085:8CB8:12C3:7A74:8162:34DB:AD94 (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thesis sections
Talk:Seems Like Old Times (film)

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 
Talk:Bottoms Up (Bottom episode)

message: Is the budget for this film $3 million, or $1 million? RFlynn26 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of the amounts are estimated. It is very hard to find any information on this movie (in terms of budget). I am going to put in 1,000,000-3,000,000 (Estimated) in the infobox and remove the amount in the article. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget 
Talk:Foul Play (1978 film)

message: Does anyone anywhere find the one trivia item the least bit interesting?  Who cares they don't mention the real vice president in the newscast?  Films normally create fictional names and people instead of real people and events.  It's not historical fiction, for crying out loud!  I vote to delete it.  If no one responds within a few days, I'll just nix it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that "trivia" item seemed confusing and pointless. I mean, there is no "Gloria Mundy" in real life either. Is that a trivia item too? Delete it. Asa01 10:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia pointless

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 19:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 

message: CAn someone define exactly the meaning of this phrase.I have problems unerstandint it after I read about the film
in 1978.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.82.0 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition 

message: "Foul Play" is a common term not generally associated with this movie. The article should be Renamed "Foul_Play_(Film)", and have "Foul_Play" be linked to the disambiguation page "Foul_play". 192.138.51.34 (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree...the term "foul play" has a disambig page which only links to "crime".  The term "Foul Play" (note italicized and capitalization) links to this film.  However, I can put a header to link to "crime".  -Cbradshaw (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cbradshaw and think the header link is a good idea. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Article? 

message: alltså är inte »Tjejen från Petrovka« den första »tjejen som«-titeln egentligen?
den kom innan foul play.
kram!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.122.95 (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  tjejen som trodde för mycket 
Talk:Captains Courageous

message: Got rid of the 'motifs' section - arbitrary, no citations, not particularly encyclopedic in presentation. Saw no discernible reason for including it. 98.101.136.218 (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Motifs

message: The 1951 western film "Cattle Drive" is another adaptation of "Captains Courageous".--80.141.236.91 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another adaptation 

message: *The section titled "Influences" states that "Mentions of elephants were most likely derived from Kipling's experiences in India where he was born." There are no mentions of elephants in the book; suggest removal of this paragraph. Also following statement of "Great Green" being Egyptian is suspect and lacks reference.--Death Bredon (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What elephants? 
Talk:Northwest Passage (film)

message: The films Objective, Burma! (1945) and Distant Drums (1951) follow similar plot lines:  a small but diverse group of highly trained professional soldiers set out overland to strike an enemy outpost, then split up and return in smaller groups, with all but the leader's group captured and horrifically executed.  They are cut off from supplies, and make a final stand, only to be rescued at the last moment.  Would similar plot lines be included under "Sequels and Related Projects?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.175.214.128 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar Plot Lines
Talk:Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941 film)

message: Without a shadow of doubt, this is the finest depiction of the evil Hyde in filmdom.Bostoneire (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracy's Portrayal 

message: Brandon Hurst who appears in this film as Layon's butler had a major role in the 1920 Barrymore version  as Sir George Carew. MBG 119.11.15.151 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Brandon Hurst
Talk:Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931 film)

message: Is this a 1931 or 1932 film?  This DVD cover on IMDb states the latter, even though its corresponding IMDb article states the former. Neelix (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, 1932, since its general release was on January 2, 1932.  It had its New York City premiere on December 31, 1931, but that's not the same thing.  Both the AFI film catalog and the TCM database list it as 1932.  It's true that IMDB lists it as 1931, so they must be going by the premiere.  A premiere that lakes place in the previous year geberally has more to do with Oscar eliigibility than anything else, but we should go by when actual real people across the country got to see the film, which was in 1932. BMK (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1931 or 1932? 

message: There should be some mention on the film's reception (rotten tomatoes rating).--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception

message: This article is off to a good start, however there are several issues that need to be fixed. The production section of the article could be expanded more, this section also has a major portion of its information that is unsourced and needs to be given proper citations for its information. The reception section could use more reviews from notable critics as well as more information on the film's box office. This article is also missing important information on the film's theatrical/home media releases which needs to be added to the article with citations given to its information. The article is also missing important information on the film's legacy hand how it changed the audience's  view on the character of Edward Hyde and the film's impact in popular culture. All of these changes and additions need to occur in order for this article to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation and Missing Information
Talk:The Seventh Cross

message: What is the basis for the asertion that the Little Brown edition of novel was an abridgement? I'm not saying that's incorrect. I just was not aware of it. If so it is not idenitified as such in the Little Bron edition.
I think the discussion of the film version of this novel is almost mocking and give an incorrect impression. This was a serious film of some cinematic virtue. Among other things it was the first feature film of the noted director Fred Zinneman. I shall flesh out the entry on this when I can. --Tomstoner 01:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Since there has been no objection since the issue was raised many months ago, I have moved the film section to a separate article on the film, and added a disambiguation reference to the top.--Silverscreen 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article commenced