Talk:Sneakers (1992 film)

message: I expanded this stub, but it's still a bit short. If anyone wants to add to it, please do - or if there's anything specific you'd like to see included, I'd be happy to find it out and add it. CamelsRmammals 21:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of Stub

message: I did a sizeable amount of cleanup today. This article's not yet perfect, but with the exception of a few glaring errors further down in the page (Trivia, etc.), the article is very serviceable.
* Expanded the abstract and reformatted it
* Reorganized Sections to better fit Wiki standards
* Changed "Overview" sec to "Synopsis", cleanup to fit this purpose
* Removed "Plot" section: Possible Copyright Violation
I removed the section labeled "Plot", as it was extremely lengthy and was almost entirely composed of lines taken verbatim from the film (and not identified as such, but that's hardly the point -- it was simply a straight read of the film itself; not only did it copy too much, it didn't include key storytelling points and was difficult to follow for those not already familiar with movie). 
If someone wants to retool a comprehensive explanation of the plot that conforms to Wiki standards, I encourage it.
As it stands now, the "Synopsis" section serves its purpose well, so an immediate rewrite of "Plot" isn't necessary.
--
ManfrenjenStJohn 04:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was the "Plot" section a copyright violation?  When listing a copyright violation, it's nice to include a link.  I hope you don't mean that it's a copyright violation of the movie.  A plot description of a movie is not a copyright violation of the movie.   ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for guiding me through this -- I've been reading WikiP since its inception, but I'm relatively new to editing. The "Plot" section was overlong and difficult to read; It bogged down the entire article. Copyright violation was definitely one of my concerns, as the section read like an exhaustive scene-by-scene description of the film, with most scenes described using strings of dialogue lifted from the movie but written as if original; not as a cite. I think it was just poor form and too much of a risk of a copyright violation on top of that, due to the absolute linear similarity to the film's dialogue. Feel free to revert it or review it without reverting it (if that's possible); I'd like to see if you agree. At any rate, I've read a lot of good wiki plot summaries and a lot of bad ones, and that one was ... well, one of the bad ones. It really struck me as How Not to Do A Good Plot Summary. (I know there's a policy that describes this, but I'm not familiar enough to cite it as I write this.) I think the "plot" section entry did far more harm than good. I stared at it for a good while to see if I could rework it, and decided that it would be more efficient to start from scratch. If I can find the policy I'm thinking of, I'll be sure to come back and cite it here. I'm happy to read your guidance on the matter. Thanks. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 06:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing: If need be, I can find a copy of the script for comparison's sake, but I think that probably won't be necessary. The section as it was written simply fails on its own merits. I do not mean to denigrate anyone -- rather, I'm actually trying to ingratiate myself. If I knew how to quickly track down the author to ask his/her opinion before I deleted it, I would. As it is, all I know how to do is to "be bold", and describe my actions here on the talk page. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Thanks -- ManfrenjenStJohn 06:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  I think it was written by many many people.  It's not a copyright violation, don't worry about that at all.  I think I agree and disagree.  I think there should have been a plot section, but maybe not as long.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 08:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it upon myself to jump in with a red pencil and edit down the plot summary.  While it was not badly written, it was excessively wordy and repetitive in parts.  Feel free to heap scorn upon me for my efforts. Konczewski 17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup - 9 March 2007 

message: On the movie's ending, the article reads: "The last scene is a television news report: the reporter announces that the Republican National Committee has misplaced its funds and entered bankruptcy, while, simultaneously, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and The United Negro College Fund are seeing record earnings, "due mostly to large, anonymous donations," mirroring Martin's computer crimes from the beginning of the film and hinting that he has resumed his past habits."
How does this mirror his past habits? The article (and the movie itself) simply states that he played pranks, not that he acted as some sort of Robin Hood character. I think that whoever wrote this sort of missed the fact that this is how Abbott's tried to give the group 'peace on earth and goodwill towards men'. I'm removing the line. 213.126.132.70 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It mirrors his past habits because in the opening scene of the movie Cosmo & Martin are breaking into bank accounts and transfering money from organizations that they dislike to those which they like. Gorillatheape (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ending

message: :Image:Top-geek-sneakers.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Top-geek-sneakers.jpg

message: :Image:Sneakersmovie.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) 05:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sneakersmovie.jpg

message: Did anyone else notice the tributes to Three Days of the Condor?  The most noticeable to my recollection is the wheelchair-bound phone operator who answers "This is the Colonel," apparently promoted from Major, the rank he held in the original film, where he answered equally brusquely.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribute 

message: I have removed this as this is chiefly a British designation, and I find no evidence that he has English knighthood.  Furthermore, this site doesn't indicate that "Sir" is a proper form of address for an ambassador to Japan.  98.28.12.216 (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, since none of the other articles that has his name listed has "Sir" in it, it should be listed without in this article as well for consistency, something that can be found via the MOS, I believe.  To wit, if you change this article to allow the Sir, then ALL other articles with his name mentioned must be changed to reflect it, or don't use Sir in the first place.  98.28.12.216 (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He is Ambassador to Japan on behalf of his native Bahamas, which DOES have the right to bestow on their Ambassadors the title of Sir.  Knighthoods are not necessarily an English designation, in fact any country that has Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State has the right to bestow this honour upon their citizens. As for other articles then go ahead and change them. The most important of articles with reference to Sidney Poitier is his own wikipedia page which states clearly he is referred to as Sir Sidney Poitier.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprhys (talk • contribs) 17:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not changing umpteen dozen articles to make it consistant.  I am going to revert your change back because though (as you say) he has the title, it clearly isn't used by him with regards to his movie roles.  98.28.12.216 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Sir" from Sidney Poitier 

message: The end of the article read (with emphasis added)
:::In a postscript, we find out somebody on the team, presumably Martin, has used the processor to steal money from the Republican National Committee, driving it to bankruptcy, and used the stolen money to make massive anonymous donations to various charities including Greenpeace and the United Negro College Fund.
I have changed this to Cosmo. It is Cosmo that is the one who wanted to continue to change the world, not Martin. The article itself states this: that Martin saw their break-in in '69 as a prank, and that Cosmo was still trying to destabilize the economy.
Montalban (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No presumptions should be made - unless the film specifically states who it was (it doesn't) no name should be attached to the act. Яehevkor ✉ 09:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I disagree, as the purpose of films isn't always to absolutely state everything. It would be assuming the audience has no brain. The film begins with the two of them hacking into the Republican party's accounts. It ends with the fact that clearly Cosmo is still out to do these sorts of things, and that this sort of thing happens at the end of the film.
However for the purposes of this article, in keeping with editorial policy I would leave it alone.
Montalban (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was Martin. At the end of the movie, Cosmo doesn't have the box and has left activism for organised crime.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presumption 

message: Sneakers appears prominently in Halt and Catch Fire season 4 episode 5 and it is the character Gordon's favorite movie. -- 109.79.119.230 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halt and Catch fire 

message: Is it possible that Joybubbles is the inspiration for that role?! --79.206.206.11 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration for "Whistler"