Talk:Witness (1985 film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Weaver, John; Kreitzer, Larry (2005). "Witness: In the World, but not of the World". In Fiddes, Paul; Clarke, Anthony (eds.). Flickering Images: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Regent's Study Guides. Smyth & Helwys Publishing. ISBN 1573124583.

Commercial Site

I removed the external link to Teaching WITNESS, which appears to be a commercial site only offering to sell teaching materials related to the film. Aaronwinborn 20:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Carpentry

I added something to the trivia section about Harrison Ford's past as a carpenter. Stills64 01:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was that note removed? It's a very relevant piece of trivia--Harrison Ford actually does have a great deal of skill at carpentry. Linkskywalker (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

nice touch

To D. Gross: Good edit - thank you. I think it was implied, but your adding the word "witness" was a nice touch, and tied it all up quite well, as did the film. Tvoz | talk 18:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

-- Thank you! I wonder why it has subsequently been smacko'd ... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.135.193.2 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

William Francis?

I noticed the actors name William Francis in the cast. I also noticed a link from the name that leads to a disambiguation page that lists every William Francis in the wikipedia, and yet it does not list an actor. I think it would be appropriate to either remove the link, or clarify which William Francis we are talking about. If there is no page for the actor in question, there should be no link. thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.184.203 (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:Witness movie.jpg

Image:Witness movie.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) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Req move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, withdrawn by requester. I added a hatnote to Witness (1985 film) to alert people about the redirect from Witness (film) and notify them of other films called Witness at Witness (disambiguation)#Film. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC) –CWenger (^ • @) 18:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Witness (1985 film) → Witness (film) – No need for the specificity, there is no other film of that name ^___^ Thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 00:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are several films titled Witness or The Witness listed at Witness (disambiguation). Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point, in that case I strongly oppose as well. Cancel this attempted move please. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 16:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Analysis of lemonade drinking

User:213.79.52.203 has entered and twice restored an entirely unreferenced bit of analysis, which one assumes is his or her own:

In that same barn-building scene, there is one unrealistic moment. Harrison Ford's character is offered a drink while working and, naturally, having worked up a sweat, gulps down the glass of lemonade. This is in contrast to one of his fellow Amish workers, who just takes a mouthful. It's to point home the moderation of their life. That's normally a well-made point but, in this instance, a mouthful of lemonade when the body is sweating and thirsty would only refresh the mouth, it would not re-hydrate the body. So, in real life, a moderate Amish man, working up a sweat, would have to gulp back a glass of lemonade just like the rest of us, or he'd soon have to stop working. Of course, he mightn't gulp it so that it dribbles down his chin, as it does with the Ford character. But that bit's all to the good and well expressed. But Weir missed the point with that bit; forgot how life works amidst his Amish admiration. Which is understandable.

Certainly, the contrast between John Book and the Amish is a primary theme of the movie, that I have no objection to this episode serving as an example. But the rather labored argument that it is unrealistic is unhelpful and pure original research, as far as I can tell, and therefore should not be included in this article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this the right place to reply?? I presume so...Mr Goodyear, are you saying you disagree with my point? Can you tell me how the argument is rather laboured? To me, it is very simple. A body needs to be rehydrated from labour intensive work, in hot sunshine, with more than one mouthful of liquid. What's laboured? That to me is an extremely helpful observation. The film makes an error, a basic error, in expressing one of its points. A simple, directorial oversight that it is most helpful to point out. I'm sure the director himself would agree. It is a well-known pastime to point out funny errors in films. And it is completely verifiable: one only has to watch the film. A very hard working man stops his work to take a single mouthful of a drink, while his colleague knocks back the rest of the glass. It is a mistake and requires correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.52.203 (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is the place to respond and appreciate your doing so. I don't see the point in debating your idea on its merits so long as it is clearly your idea. I refer you to Wikipedia's policy on original research and its summary:

"Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."

Can you provide even a single reliable source advancing a similar argument about this film? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)