Talk:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film)

message: The guidelines identify one kind of links normally to be avoided: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Do the TCM, Allmovie, or Filmsite provide a unique resource to the article? As for the Ebert links, this says, "Professional reviews should instead be used as sources in a 'Reception' section." Thus, the Ebert links can be incorporated into the article. We can place all removed external links here for future reference by others. Erik (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines are not requirements. You seem to have appointed yourself the arbiter of what goes and what stays. How are any of the sites removed any better, or worse, then the oft maligned IMDb which was left in. As to professional reviews if you are not going to incorporate them into the article how is anyone to know they exist. Deleting is so easy and gets ones edit count up. Going the extra step of making as much info available to the reader as possible is not as easy but it would double ones edit count. In my opinion (POV I know) wikipedia should be a good place to start to learn about a given subject. Having multiple external links on each film page causes the reader to return here after perusing each external link before moving onto the next one. Your removal of so many possibilities means that it will be better for them to go to google to find the variety of places to go. Driving readers away is always a dicey proposition. One last thing, I know that you do lots of good work here and are a thoughtful editor - since you removed these items from numerous film articles I feel that you should move this discussion to the filmprojects talk page for wider discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We can discuss IMDb's viability as an external link as well, but my opinion is that it is too entrenched to warrant discussion at this time. For this article's external links, they can be placed on this talk page. It's a practice that's gaining. For example, I put resources to use at Talk:Moon (film)#Headlines. The "External links" section is supposed to be a place to add unique resources. Since the film article can cover a lot, very few links are qualified to be placed there. You mention driving readers away; would they not be driven away because the external links take them away from Wikipedia when Wikipedia could very well contain information implemented from these links? That is why we avoid link farms; the goal is to provide readers with content in the article body. External links are purely supplementary to this content; they are not meant to hang out in a queue, waiting to be implemented. Erik (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many good points and thanks for the info. I see that some of this is being discussed on the filmproject page - at least as far as AMG is concerned. I do have one suggestion. If there are links to any reviews that are useful - and you aren't going to take the time to add them to the reception section - would it be possible to transfer them to the talk page under a header like "Removed from external links per guidelines - please add to reception section if you care to do so" or some such (I imagine that you could come up with something shorter :-).) That way if there is an editor, current or future, who cares about a page they will have a chance to do the work necessary. I just throw this out there as a suggestion. If you find it unworkable than so be it. MarnetteD | Talk 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather keep Allmovie visible, but I do not know enough about quickly removing the link from the article and adding it to the talk page with a note on usage. Maybe AWB? I'm not too familiar with it... I've done way too much manually during my time here. Erik (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not mean AMG. I meant "professional reviews" like you mentioned above. Things like the Roger Ebert reviews on this films page. I am sorry that I was not clearer. As to how to do it I am a computer program ignoramus and do everything manually also (which always makes chasing vandals a slower process!) Maybe there aren't too many reviews worth keeping but those that are should have some kind of chance to be saved. I hope. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 18:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: It would probably be relevant to work in some reference to the Rosenhan experiment into the article. While the novel is older than the experiment, the movie would probably never have been filmed without the public focus on the experiment.
:Do you have a source for your speculation that "the movie would probably never have been filmed without the public focus on the experiment." If so, go ahead and add it. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. Cresix (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rosenham Experiment

message: Is everyone okay with the Plot section of this article? There are many little phrases that make it long—and some that make it wrong. I'm posting this starting point here in hopes we can make the Plot section of the article a little tighter—and more accurate.
As I said, it's a starting point.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone object if I replace the existing "Plot" section with this one above?—HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously this page is not on many watchlists anymore. At this brief moment I have no big objections to the transfer of this version but you should be ready for others to remove plot points that you thought that you were shortening the article and they think are too much detail. MarnetteD | Talk 06:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for responding MarnetteD—I'm glad someone's watching! I would hope that people do trim it up. I did a quick trim myself. Thanks again.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Copied revision into article (with several more minor trims). I left the old version there, hidden, until everyone is satisfied.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See my separate entry on this. All good, except for Harding, who is not paranoid, but a closeted homosexual. This is made clear in Kesey's book. At that time, it was considered a mental disorder. The actor, William Redpath, certainly highlights this aspect of Harding, and it is inferred throughout the film by other characters as well as by Harding himself (albeit by way of an elaborate denial where no direct accusation has been made).  Hanoi Road (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Pleased with the [[One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film)#Plot|Plot section]]?

message: It is my understanding that in the novel we are never told the setting of the events occurring in the book, but this article states that the novel took place at the same mental institution that was used for the filming of the movie. I think this is false. It would be greatly appreciated if someone would investigate.
Ebmonkey2 (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Needed

message: Chief actually mumbles "Thanks" after being handed the gum. McMurphy hands him a second piece in an attempt to get him to say something else, and that's when Chief says "Juicy Fruit," proceeded by a conversation between the two. I don't know if anyone cares to edit this tidbit in, under "Plot." At current, it's not exactly factual. -- Charles Stover 08:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juicy Fruit 

message: I really don't care that the section detailing this (which did have a link to a source, unlike what the deleter says) was deleted, since I rewrote it slowly and sold it to a content farm. BUT there should be a section. Other movies adapted from novels have such sections, and some of them have no footnotes (attributions) at all. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences between Movie and Novel

message: I noticed that in the plot there is some dialogue actually quoted. In all, save for one instance, the dialogue is completely unnecessary and should be removed.216.58.83.16 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary sentences

message: I added a finish to this sentence which was promptly removed - even though the link is provided, the sentence gives a brief summary. As it was deleted, the sentence is actually incomplete, even without punctuation. I think that the sentence was accurate and should be returned because of felicitousness. 
Either way, the current correction should be, itself, edited to conform to grammatic standards. 
AS IS:
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest won all of the "Big Five" Academy Awards at the 48th Oscar ceremony
AS PROPOSED:
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest won all of the "Big Five" Academy Awards at the 48th Oscar ceremony, one of only three films to achieve such a feat, the other two being It Happened One Night (1934) and The Silence of the Lambs (1991).
goej (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need all of the names of the other films in that section - it just clutters things up. A) adding them is WP:OR B) The names of the films is not relevant to this article. C) It is relevant at the article about those that have won the "big 5" and we have a link to the article about their winning the awards for readers who want to know their names. MarnetteD|Talk 04:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK aside from my first message the item did not belong above the table. I have moved the relevant link into the section above where the 48th Oscar awards were already mentioned. BTW I am not sure what this word (felicitousness) is supposed to be. Also the grammar here "won all of the "Big Five" Academy Awards" is a bit dodgy as it says the same thing twice. MarnetteD|Talk 04:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and Honors 

message: According to Rotten Tomatoes, its genres are "Drama, Classics, Comedy". I too felt it to be quite light in tone. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Comedy-drama]]? 

message: I have no idea why  continues to remove this paragraph in the reception section. It is clearly significant for any film to be put on that registry. Yes it states it in the lead as well but that is the point. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. Removing it from the reception section only leaves it in the lead which is not appropriate. --Majora (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't restore it because there wasn't a source attached, but I do agree that it is significant enough to mention.LM2000 (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't a source because it kept being removed. Sorry bout that. I readded it. --Majora (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, didn't know that.  It deserves to stay and I'll keep an eye on it.LM2000 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Film Registry mention 

message: Hi. Why isn't the title of this article 'One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest (film)' with 'over' as uncapitalized? Four-letter prepositions (like 'over') aren't capitalized as per MOS:TITLECAPS. Thanks, CelestialWeevil (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title capitalization 

message: It is obvious that the Harding character is a closet homosexual and this is hinted at by other patients during the film. There is a memorable scene in which he makes a shrill, semi-hysterical denial of this, and his predicament seems to fuel his anger and arrogance. I wonder whether referencing this is relevant. He is a key character, and defined by his ongoing denial. Most reviews of the film - including one by Ebert - arrived at the same conclusion. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dale Harding 

message: Some time ago, I qualified Bromden's charade with the qualifier that he is not a "deaf mute". This is one of the core points of the film. I will make the edit again. The source is the film itself, where this is made perfectly obvious (he later speaks, and can hear). I would ask anyone who reverts this to make a case to the contrary, rather than simply vandalising a correction. Hanoi Road (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief Bromden 

message: — Assignment last updated by Srpasq (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Media Effects