Talk:Marat/Sade

message: Surely this article should use the film's full name for it's title, rather than the shortened one? It should be moved, really...217.205.110.52 (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Wikipedia titles are usually the most commonly used variant or name for the subject, with significant variants included in the opening paragraph - exactly as this article has it. The full (English) title already redirects here, and the full German title will do so also - as soon as I create the redirect! Pinkville (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: ::This discussion started on my talk page.  I've moved it here. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of the policy that you are talking about.  If it is about fair use of copyrighted images, that would not apply here.  From your own comments above, you contradict your objections to the picture.  I think the best reaction to my adding this picture would be additional text which describes how Ian Richardson recreated the pose in the picture.  I'd be happy to take a sreenshot of the pose from the film it as it is in my netflix cue.  It would qualify as fair use.  No doubt that the pose was recreated in several productions.  Is this much different (albeit smaller in scale) to Sunday in the Park with George?.. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the discussion here  It looks like my worries were unfounded. If you haven't seen this film before I think that you will find it most interesting. There will be several moments to chose from for a screenshot so I look forward to seeing your choice(s). MarnetteD | Talk 13:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Hello to the members of the film project. User:Sam wants to add J.L. David's picture of the slain Marat to the page for the play and film Marat/Sade as seen here . I have objected to this based on the fact that the picture has virtually nothing to do with either the play or the film. I am using the highly restrictive nature of the current pictures policy as the basis for this thought. The argument that it represents the historical events that this play is based on has some flaws for me. It is David's idealized representation of an event that he was not in attendence at. The play/film is about a group of people locked in asylum creating an event that none of them saw. Thus, we have a one artists painted fiction representing another set of artists theatrical fiction. Unfortunately, I have removed it a second time before coming here to ask for comments and a consensus. I apologize for jumping the gun and I will replace it after I am done typing here. My question to the members of the film project is to help us decide whether this picture is appropriate to this page. If the consensus is to leave this picture as part of the article I would ask that it be reduced in size as, in its current form, it dominates the page. Thank you in advance for your time and attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 00:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I believe that the proper forum for a discussion on the article and aspects of its development should take place on the "Discussion" page of the article. What has just recently occurred was spelled out in edit summaries but a more through discourse may be required. At this juncture, it looks like only two editors have a content dispute. Taking the subject to the discussion page allows for more input from others. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just before I pack up for the night, I will point out (without examining whether the picture is actually appropriate for the article) that the image is in the public domain, so the "highly restrictive nature of the current pictures policy" does not apply here. You can do anything you like with it. Steve T  • C 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to comment should discussion emerge on the talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here seeking a wider audience for discussion as this page seems to be on very few editors (maybe only mine) watchlist. It seemed highly likely that the only discussion that would go on there would be between Sam and myself. Having lived through the mass removal of pictures of a few months ago one of the things that seemed to come up again and again was WP:NFCC number eight. I could not see how David's painting was illustrative of this play/film. But Steve's point about this being public domain seems to take care of this and Sam has stated that he will be trying to get a screen capture from the film itself. Thanks again for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 13:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: An image of the cover of a published copy of the play is available at , and the cover of the film's DVD release can be found at . Perhaps Sam and MarnetteD will agree one of these is more appropriate for this article. MovieMadness (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for tracking these pictures down MovieMadness. Actually, I like both of them. But as this page seems to be mostly about the play I would probably chose that picture to head the article. If we were to add an infobox for the film the DVD cover might go in that. Unfortunately, I don't think there is enough info on the film to split it into a separate article and infoboxes added lower down on a page often make it look sloppy or leave big gaps. I will let you all decide what to do about that. MarnetteD | Talk 14:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% with your feeling there isn't enough info on the film to split it into a separate article and infoboxes added lower down on a page often make it look sloppy or leave big gaps. Do you want to upload the image of the cover of a published copy of the play, do you want me to do it, or do you feel Sam and others need to weigh in with their opinions first? MovieMadness (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move here, MovieMadness. I concur that the images that are used should have a direct correlation to the topic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: (xpost) I would say that the image should be removed, as it is not relevant to the topic itself, which is a play/film in which there is a play about Marat - therefore even in the play's context, the real Marat does not appear. The image itself is a well-known work of art in its own right by David, so its inclusion is confusing and distracting rather than illustratory. Furthermore, it has no context and appears next to the plot section. Were there a section or sections regarding the real-world context between the play and the history, this painting might be appropriate, but as an illustration of the plot of the play (or play within the play), it fails (IMHO) to be appropriately and sufficiently relevant in all circumstances. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making the change MovieMadness. Do you think that a samll version of the pic of the DVD cover might fit in the film section without using an infobox? Maybe you can play with it a bit and if it throws the page out of whack then don't worry about it. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a Productions section with details about the original RSC and Broadway productions and expanded the film section, which added enough room to include the DVD image. MovieMadness (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work MovieMadness. The page looks better and is more imformative. Many thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Assuming the fair use/copyright issues have been properly accounted for in the new images, the comparison of the screen shot of "Marat" and the David painting should be in the article, not tacked on afterward in a Gallery. Obviously, a point is being made with this comparison about the sources for Brooks's staging and any substantive point (with text) of this kind belongs in the article proper. Such a point should - if possible - be backed up with a reference that describes Brooks's inspirations, sources, etc. for the staging. If None of this can be adequately provided, then I think it's better to remove the David painting and keep only the screen shot. If the image quality of the screen shot can be improved (and redimensioned to come closer to the David painting) that would be very good indeed. Pinkville (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I second that. The article states that the scene was based on the painting, but provides no source for this. It's not sufficient to say that it is self-evident, there has to be a source. Given Wikipedia's low, low standards you could put something in the text to say e.g. "many of the compositions were based on classical paintings, such as N", and you could have the screenshot as a general illustration of the film. You can't however use images to make an original point. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about a picture 

message: "The first recording of the show was a three-LP set released in 1964 by Caedmon Records. This was a complete audio recording of the original Broadway production."
Surely this is wrong; the article describes the original production in English as having been by the Royal Shakespeare Company, and the Broadway production as having opened in December 1965. Perhaps "Broadway" in the quote is a mistake and should read "London"? Harfarhs (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzling description of cast recording 

message: Copied text and reference from Marat/Sade to Charenton (asylum).  See former article's history for names of contributors.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marat/Sade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030092104/http://web.ard.de/chronik/index_anfang.html to http://web.ard.de/chronik/index_anfang.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marat/Sade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111228130717/https://www.rsc.org.uk/whats-on/marat-sade/ to http://www.rsc.org.uk/whats-on/marat-sade/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marat/Sade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150927083743/http://www.edgeoftheworld.org/2000/shows/maratsade.html to http://www.edgeoftheworld.org/2000/shows/maratsade.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160804051959/https://www.tcg.org/publications/at/awards_listing.cfm?ID=5&vbyear=9 to https://www.tcg.org/publications/at/awards_listing.cfm?ID=5&vbyear=9
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: None of the 'other notable productions' seems particularly important, except perhaps the RSC revival; most of the entries look like self-promotion. Are there official criteria? Should I just delete them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoAdamite (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of productions? 

message: I'd like to add the 1967 production at UC Irvine to the list of notable productions. The lead actors were Bob Gunton and Robert Cohen (playwright). Gunton is a notable actor and Cohen is a well known playwright who also has written about Peter Weiss. That seems notable enough to me. Thoughts?  Justinkrivers (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1967 Production