Talk:The Shoes of the Fisherman (film)

President Nixon?

The statement that this was one of President Nixon's favorite films and it's possible link to his China initiative is unsourced. T.E. Goodwin 22:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed {{POV}} and replaced with {{fact}} next in the actual paragraph in question to help other editors locate the area to be improved. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• According to [1], The Shoes of the Fisherman was the first movie Nixon saw after being inaugurated as president, but he doesn't seem to have viewed it again during his presidency. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things

Two things:

1: There really needs to be separate articles for the novel and film.

2: The plot summery is a mess, wandering from topic to topic in no logical order and leaving many things out entirely. Furthermore, it is unclear in several places whether it is desribing the book or film.

67.142.130.34 05:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) (snowboardpunk - I can't log in from this computer)

Split

As mentioned earlier on this talk page, this article should be split and has been tagged as such. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Shoes of the Fisherman (film)
• The Shoes of the Fisherman (novel)

How are you going to split them. There is little information about the book, except who the author is and its NYT ranking, and only stub info about the film. Two stubs are not better than one. MarnetteD | Talk 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the film and book need to be split - they are two separate art-forms after all. I'll aim to work on a page for the book as soon as I can. It fits into the Australian literature project. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The article should first be expanded and then, when enough information is gathered, it should be split. But not before. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

differences between novel and film?

One key qusetion regarding any split-- are there any significant differences between the novel and the film? Unless there are, it seems they could be handled as one entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RLM1961 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Publication date

I recently added in a claim that the book was published on the very day that John XXIII died. That was reverted because of a lack of citation (although not only for that reason, but that doesn't concern us here), and I couldn't find an online confirmation of it, so I was prepared to believe it was hyperbolic. I've now come across another such claim. I found it in my collection of old newspaper articles. It's called "Last Writes", by Tony Stephens, dated 3 June 2000, from the SMH (Spectrum, Features, p. 3s). I quote:

The Wests were in New York for the launch of The Shoes of the Fisherman, about the papacy, when John [XXIII] died in 1963. "With your luck, West," friend and fellow author Jon Cleary had said, "the Pope will die on publication day". He did. The Wests went off to church.

I can't see it online, or it may be available via the SMH archives. Any comments before I insert this information into the article, with the cite? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job on the research JoO (and nice to talk to you again too:-)). I think that you should reenter it citing the article that you found. Not all citations have to be online verifiable and you have already done more legwork than most. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects

I would respectfully question three out of the five WikProjects that this article is said to be within the scope of.

• WikiProject European Microstates: this article is about a novel and film set in the Vatican and Rome - surely that doesn't count as "coverage of European Microstates"?
• WikiProject Christianity: although the novel and film are about a Pope, surely that doesn't count as "coverage of Christianity"?
• WikiProject Australia: the only relevance to Australia is that the novel was written by an Australian; I don't think Australia is even mentioned in the text, but if it is, it has no significance. The film was from Hollywood. Surely that there's no "coverage of Australia" in this article?

I suggest that someone with more administrator-fu than me might consider deleting those three boxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanning (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Separating book and film

There has been the suggestion above that these should be separated, which was then countered by the statement that more information needs to be added before splitting. I agree with both. Towards that end, I have tried to separate out the book and the film, to at least make them separate sections. --Bruce Hall (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't make sense to have a section headed "1968 film," when the preceding section had already described the film, rather than the novel. PurpleChez (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

As it stood. the article was pretending to be about the book, with a request to write in Australian English, but was really about the film with the actor's names accompanying what someone thought was a book synopsis. Two stubs are better if the article is likely to degenerate further, and become a greater mess, so I have gone ahead with a split. Philip Cross (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)