Talk:Election (1999 film)

message: This article is extremely poorly written. For example - in the plot it states that he professes his love for Linda, after a bee sting. First of all, he was stung by the bee the night before. Secondly, why would you even phrase it that way?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.213.238 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is absolutely no indication that Tracy is using her sexuality to curry favor with the congressman at the end of the movie. Indeed, this politician is played by a real-life congressman (at the moment, his name escapes me). The notion that a sitting United States Congressman would allow himself to portrayed as a philanderer in any way in any media is absurd to the point that it renders absudity obsolete. I don't know where the author gets this, aside from his/her own assumption. This point needs to be deleted.Swatson1978 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromising situation?

message: Tammy's campaign speech to the student body is one of the most memorable scenes ever filmed.--FrickFrack 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tammy's Speech

message: I think this article needs a serious cleanup. There's currently 11 paragraphs detailing the plot (in a non-encylcopedic tone, in my opinion). The article also has 27 Trivia points. I'm not opposed to lengthy wikipedia articles; but it seems to me this article could be written in more concise terms with less emphasis on plot spoilers and pop culture trivia. 66.17.118.195 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry does seem full of WP:OR and/or a lack of the use of WP:RS to back up claims. There also seems to be a lot of trivia  masquerading as other kinds of information. I have flagged some concerns but there is a lot of work that needs doing, I am unsure if this might be best acoomplished by removing quite a few sections. (Emperor 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: :Image:Election poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Election poster.jpg

message: I've added a note on the film's narrative style, which I think is a distinctive feature of this particular film and should get a mention in an encyclopedic article.  It's an obvious point that stands as it is, I think, but I'll go looking for some published criticism about this aspect of the film to see if I can link out to a reference. Adam C Fletcher (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction 

message: I've also added in information on the UK certification of the film. The line 'some moderate sex and references' sounds terribly clunky but is word for word the advice on the BBFC site. Adam C Fletcher (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certification 

message: The article does not accurately represent how crappy this movie is. Particularly the creepiness of Mathew Broderick.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.116.78 (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This movie sucks 

message: The plot mentions that the teacher who seduced Tracey was not charged with statutory rape. The age of consent in Nebraska is 17. Tracey is depicted as being at the end of her junior year (running for student body president for the following school year). Most poeple are 17 by the end of their junior year. It is possible, therefore, that there could not be a charge of statutory rape if Tracey was of age. Of course still wrong for a married teacher to seduce a student. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statutory Rape 

message: okay, this has become subject to some edit warring, without any discussion at all, and we have one user sniping at another in the main article itself.  I've rolled back  this because Wordpress is 100% not a WP:RS and the xojane article is basically a blog/lifestyle article, not a news one.  I agree with  that is it is not really germane to the article and is more suited to the associated actor's pages.  , please make your case here as to why you think it should belong, keeping in mind WP:NPA WP:BLP WP:RS.  Thanks. hbdragon88 (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your post, hbdragon88, you are right when you say that there should have been discussion before this. , can you make a case for your addition? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

text: FWIW, TOJ hasn't edited since 2018, so I wouldn't anticipate a response. DonIago (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production controversy 

message: "Tracy announces to Jim, who is in charge of organizing the school's student government, that she is running for student body president, telling him they "will be spending a lot of time together." In Jim's mind, this is a sign of unbridled ambition and sexual manipulation, and finds it repugnant. With Tracy appearing to have no opposition, Jim decides to humiliate Tracy by encouraging Paul Metzler to enter the race."
Emphasis is mine. This material is unsourced (or just speculation). It seems to me Jim isn't trying to humiliate Tracy, just find a candidate who can beat her. The first bit is speculative as well. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article's not protected, WP:SOFIXIT? I mean, I appreciate your caution, but why not just make appropriate edits? Something I'm missing? DonIago (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: The article currently describes Tracy as "an overachieving senior". I assume it would be normal for elections for student government president to take place towards the end of the junior year of high school. There are a few hints in the narration that this is still the junior year. Tracy's relationship with Dave Novotny is described as taking place in Tracy's junior year, "a few months" before the events of the film. Paul Metzler broke his leg "at Shadow Ridge over Christmas break" and his leg is still in a brace. The narration towards the end of the film describes the events of senior year. I'm not very familiar with the American high school system, but shouldn't Tracy be described as "an overachieving junior"? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junior or Senior?