Talk:Gone with the Wind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gone with the Wind article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

An event in this article is a May 3 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Contents

[edit] Separation

Shouldn't we make the book be the main article and a separate article (Gone with the Wind (movie)) for the movie? User:Switcher

This would be one of the options (see, for example, The Boys from Brazil), particularly if (a) the article is getting too long (what is "too long"?) and/or if (b) the movie differs substantially from the novel it is based on. Not having read the book, I couldn't say if that's the case here. On the other hand, juxtaposing both works in one article draws people's attention to the differences. Personally, that's what I prefer. <KF> 18:30, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
This should definitly be seperate articles. Although it does allow attention to differences, they are two seperate works of art, and branching off the articles could let each one trive. Question is, what work gets kicked off, as the book came first, but the movie is currently more popular and more pages linked to this page for the movie --Poorpete 14:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

de: and sv: have separete articles for the film and the movie. The problem is how to do with the interwiki-links? I have added double interwiki-links to sv: and to de:. Not sure if this is how this kind of problems is usually handled. / Habj 19:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

OK I have just finished separating the two pages with infomation about the 1936 novel remaining at "Gone with the Wind" and infomation about the 1939 film at Gone with the Wind (film).
I have also changed the name from "Gone With the Wind" to "Gone with the Wind". Currently policy states that "the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first word in the title and those that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for), prepositions (to, over, through) or articles (an, a, the, that)." The word "with" is a preposition and as such has been changed to lowercase.
I should point out though that this was taken from the naming of albums and songs but this is being applied across the board ie. to television shows, films, books, computer and video games, plays etc. -- Ianblair23 02:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It begins!

This article has long disappointed me. Having just finished the book, the biggest honour I could do it is fix this article up. My ultimate aim is make it featured article-worthy.

To do:

  • Rewrite plot summary.
  • Rewrite character descriptions.
  • Add stuff. Cite everything.
  • Reorganise to conform to WP:Novels structure standards.
  • Tweak Infobox. (Ironically, I was the one who put it there initially. :P)

Spamguy 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page numbers

Giving page numbers in reference to a particular passage in the novel has only a limited use. There are many different editions of the novel, with different page numberings. It would be more useful to list the chapter number, since those do not change from edition to edition. — Walloon 05:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prisoners of war

I have removed a long section that violates Wikipedia rules against original research, and that fails to take a neutral point of view.

Some examples from the deleted text:

Ms. Mithcell's political agenda causes her to bend history beyond fiction into outright lies upon the historical record. . . . The bitter historical truth of the failure of Officer Prisoner exchanges in the Civil War is based upon totally different set of historical facts that Ms. Mitchell had to ignore in order sustain the mountian of historical lies that are the "history" in her novel. . . . Where Ms. Mitchell gets the idea that Major Wilkes is not exchanged due to his noble intention to not be exchanged to fight for the Union is simply false. And hides the truth that Major Wilkes, and the cause he fought for was not noble in any way whatsoever

From a history of the Rock Island (Illinois) Civil War Prison Barracks:

During the twenty months, the active period of the prison, 12,409 prisoners had been confined. Of these, 730 were transferred to other stations; 3,876 were exchanged; 1,960 died while confined. 41 made their escape good; 5,581 were released after taking the amnesty oath; and approximately four thousand enlisted in the Union forces.

So yes, thousands of prisoners were exchanged, and thousands were released only after signing an amnesty oath, and thousands were enlisted in the Union forces. Nothing that Margaret Mitchell wrote in regard to Ashley's detention at Rock Island contradicts historical fact. — Walloon 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia: Ending changes - need sources

An interesting bit of trivia that I once saw on a documentary program was that in the first draft, Ms. Mitchell ended the book at the "I don't give a damn" line, but that her editor or publisher convinced her that she couldn't end the book on such a down note. At that point, she wrote the "tomorrow will be a better day" ending.

Alas, I don't have a citation for this (and it may be a myth in any event), so I'll put it here in the hopes that someone can confirm it.

Nsayer 20:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lynda Soper

In the plot summary, it says that Ashley might marry the local hussey, Lynda Soper. Where on earth did this come from? I don't remember this at all from the book.

[edit] Spoiler Warning

Maybe a warning should be given as the whole plot is revealed...? Some people may acidentally read-on, and this may cause some disappointment.213.78.134.245 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. The section heading says "Plot summary" and there's no need to rub it in. The book was written seventy years ago so it's not exactly the latest episode of Doctor Who. --Tony Sidaway 23:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

With so many editions of this book out there, it's physically impossible to know how many printings there have been.Alli0323 17:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question and a comment

    There is no history of the publication of this major American novel. How many printings were made? How does it compare to other best sellers? How many languages was it translated into? I ask these question because I am sure the answers are not only important, but astonishing. The success of this novel was so amazing it was said no other work of fiction (other than the Bible) has outsold GWTW. Also, what impact did GWTW have on American culture? Where and when was it referenced by others? These subjects need to be addressed.Buddmar 01:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)buddmar


[edit] Fayetteville

The settings section says that most of the novel's action takes place in Fayetteville. I do not remember Fayetteville being mentioned to any great degree in the novel. Anyone else?

[edit] Symbolism section added

04-Dec-2007: I have added a section titled "Symbolism" to encourage expansion into a large section to offset that "Plot section too big for rest of article" viewpoint. There is only one source reference, so far. Remember that symbolism is a topic that must be accompanied by source references, or else unsourced statements can be quickly removed/reverted. Personal opinions, according to policy, cannot be inserted about literary symbolism for a Wikipedia article: all symbolism must be traced to outside, verifiable sources, preferably using ref-tag footnotes (using the meta tags "<ref> </ref>"). -Wikid77 13:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of plot section

04-Dec-2007: I have been trying to warn against vanity-tags being posted onto WP articles. In particular, the tag-box "Plot section too long" seems such an obvious opinionated rant-style vanity posture, grandstanding over a plot section. A plot is, by common sense, a large part of the subject. If someone is asked to describe a novel, they rarely say, "It's about 300 pages, about 2 pounds, about 7x9 inches, with Garamond font titles, high-quality paper, printed in New York after the new publishing center was built which is staffed by 50 part-time employees..." On the contrary, the plot is the main thing (longest part) about describing a novel. For wiki-history, file those "plot-section-too-long" vanity tag-boxes under "Opinionated wiki concepts that went too far" and continued to make Wikipedia look like a joke to the world. Note that keeping WP focused into a common-sense, mainstream view, will help reduce the world's perception that Wikipedia is leading the way in cosmic jokes. The trouble is caused by relatively small fringe-oid groups that force their peculiar opinions on everyone else. Some have even claimed to me that their viewpoint was a newly emerging Wikipedia standard: rarely true. There are many, many, competing, sub-groups in Wikipedia formulating guidelines or proposed policies in diverging directions.

For now, I am adding a statement (to the article) that the plot of GWTW contains many details which have triggered spin-off concepts, parodies, and cultural influences over the past decades. Thus, removing the need to complain about the plot-size issue. Thank you for your patience in letting me explain my opinions on this matter. -Wikid77 13:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Symbolism Section

I just deleted a section added by anonymous User:208.58.8.35. It was uncited, and gave the appearance of perhaps being in violation of WP:OR. Someone might want to check it in the edit log, and see if they have sources to confirm it. I would have copied it here, but it was a little long. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navbox

A user created a navbox and inserted it into multiple mainspace articles in the form of a template.. anyway I have taken the liberty and moved the navbox to a template {{Gone with the Wind}}. I don't have these pages watched and I'm not knowledgeable in this particular topic so could somebody go over the template and fix, tweak, or AfD as needed? Thanks --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 23:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timing Error

According to the book, Ashley came home on furlough for the Christmas immediately prior to the Battle of Gettysburg. That would have been Christmas 1862. Yet Melanie did not deliver her child until September 1864, which was during the Battle of Atlanta. This would have meant she was pregnant for 21 months. Margaret Mitchell later acknowledged the error, and it was corrected in the movie. There, Ashley came home on furlough for the Christmas immediately following the Battle of Gettysburg.

John Paul Parks (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)