Talk:Away from Her

FAKE news plot! FAKE! SICK!
That Plot in the article, seems to have a different story than the movie. Can anybody confirm that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.166.35 (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Having just watched the film, is does seem as though the plot synopsis on this page may be that of the story from the book, not the film. Perhaps it would be better if the synopsis from this page was moved to the entry for the book, and a synopsis that actually reflected that of the film was entered here. RhiannonAmelie (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't people stop talking about how the previous plot wasn't real, and put up their own plot? It's been months since this movie has come out and nobody has been willing to give a summary. I'll have to find this in my archive and restore the previous plot if nobody else will write one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.196.213 (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the previous plot synopsis. The users who removed it have not given any evidence to suggest the story is different and are likely vandals. If this synopsis is false, a user should include a better one. As far as I'm concerned, a "bad" synopsis is better than no synopsis (even though the veracity of the synopsis has not been determined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.196.213 (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Wikipedia is not a site where users can arbitrarily remove content they do not like. Having not seen the movie, I am joyed to finally see a plot summary on the page. If the summary needs improvement, please improve it. However, you can't just remove the summary because you do not like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.196.213 (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 24, the long synopsis that you added is a complete crock of shit. It's neither the film nor the short story, but a mostly-invented fabrication that only matches the character names and doesn't even come close to most of the actual plot. Fiona does not die at the end, the fact that she knows about Grant's affair is never any sort of secret between them, Grant is never barred from visiting after the initial 30-day adjustment period, that period is not Fiona's own personal secret choice to get revenge, there's never any living will, and on and so forth. I'm completely mystified as to who wrote that synopsis or why, but I can assure you that it is not an accurate representation of either the story (I have a copy of Hateship sitting right next to me) or the film (which I saw less than two weeks ago). Wikipedia is not a site where users can arbitrarily remove content they do not like, but it is a site where users can and should remove content that's verifiably false. Bearcat (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said earlier, if that plot synopsis is false, write a correct one. You can't just remove something because you disagree with it.  Either change the synopsis to be accurate, or leave it as it is.  I've gotten sick of all these movies on wikipedia that don't have any summaries at all, and the existing one is better than nothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.196.213 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The "existing" synopsis is not better than nothing at all, because the existing synopsis is an outright lie. All information in Wikipedia must be accurate; it is not acceptable to insist that a fake plot synopsis be kept in an article just because the real one hasn't been added yet. I've been a site administrator for about three years now, so I'm quite well acquainted with the rules around here — and one of the rules is that lies get taken out of the article. Wikipedia has to be accurate, above all else; an incomplete article is preferable to a long but wrong one. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A key policy of Wikipedia is that all article be verifiable. A keep component of that is reliability.  Outright inaccuracies are not verifiable, and must be removed asap.  There is no policy or consensus encouraging the retention of false information for lack of better information.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing most certainly is better than a complete inaccuracy. If the plot synopsis is not accurate, then there should be no synopsis at all.  This is an encyclopedia, it is suppsed to deal in real, truthful, verifiable facts.  Making things up to fill white space is the domain of Uncyclopedia. Resolute 18:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then will somebody please explain why this movie does not deserve a plot synopsis? There's been a huge debate over a "fake" one, but none of you have bothered to give a correct one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.196.213 (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stopping anybody from writing one. Nobody, however, is obliged to write one on your schedule. And kindly lose the quotation marks around the word fake. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The quotation marks around the word "fake" will remain until the falsehood of the previous summary has been verified. Also, although nobody is obliged to write a summary, nobody has, with the exception of the person who wrote the previous synopsis.  I simply figured that all those who so aggressively attacked it by saying they saw the movie would be willing to prove it - yet they all seem unwilling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.196.213 (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen the movie. I've read the short story. No further verification of the plot summary's falsehood is necessary beyond that. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For an admin, you don't understand what verifiable means, do you? It does not mean "take my word for it" but "this is wrong and here's proof."  As far as I'm concerned, the veracity of the previous synopsis is still in dispute.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.196.213 (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I understand what verifiable means quite well. The synopsis in question is verifiably wrong, because it verifiably does not match either the film or the short story. The film and the short story are themselves the only necessary sources. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to avoid further argument, let me explain what I did and maybe we can improve this page. I found that the original synopsis, which although didn't have any verifiable source, seemed to improve the page, by wiki's ignore all rules policy.  A simple disagreement without evidence from others did not deter my thought on this, so I kept restoring it.  Once the dispute became obvious, I stopped restoring it, but tried to keep the dispute active, in the hopes it would produce a lasting synopsis.  However, the dispute was repeatedly shot down by people suggesting they had seen the movie or read the short story.  No corrections, no summaries needing expansion, nothing.  I find that contrary to the goal of wikipedia.  Can we at least agree that this page is incomplete and a detailed plot summary would improve it?  I'm not asking for a schedule, or demanding one person to do it.  I am simply requesting that someone either correct the previous synopsis or scratch it and add a new one.  Since you insist on being an expert on this subject bearcat, why don't you contribute in some other way than denouncing my efforts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.196.213 (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Being an administrator and all, I happen to be occupied with other things at the moment. I'll get to this when I get to it; that's the best I can promise, but it still doesn't legitimate readding a false synopsis in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Having an incorrect and inaccurate synopsis is far more contrary to the goal of Wikipedia than having an incomplete article. Inaccuracies do not improve an article whatsoever, and in fact, they detract both from the article and the encyclopedia immensely.  An incomplete article (which is not contrary to policy - Wikipedia is a work in progress) is far preferable to an incorrect one (which is contrary to policy).  And, your comments about other editors being "unwilling" to write a proper summary or not being "bothered" to do so are incredible inappropriate.  Please stop.  Do not assume that other editors can drop all of their other tasks to complete articles on your demand or based on criteria you have invented.   A synopsis will be added in time.  In the meantime, the inaccuracies in the article must be removed.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And please start signing your comments on this talk page. Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been very disappointed with the lack of collaboration I've had with the other editors on this page. Nobody has been willing to explain how the previous synopsis was false, except that it disagreed with the book or movie (constructive editing would be to explain how, and not that it was simply a 'crock of shit'). I was also very disappointed at being spoken down to when I asked why no work had been done on a summary other than to delete the previous one and accuse me of demanding others to work on my schedule. I removed the short summary as it contained no information not already listed. I will, on my own, verify whether the previous synopsis is true, and will edit it to make it so. I figure after a few weeks, you will have either cooled off or moved on to another page, and I'll come back and try again.24.161.196.213 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did explain how the previous synopsis was wrong. I gave a whole list of examples of things that were stated in the synopsis which simply didn't happen in either the movie or the book. And on top of that, there's already an external link at the bottom of this article to the entire word-for-word text of Munro's short story as published in The New Yorker, so you can quite easily verify for yourself how wrong the synopsis was. What more do you want, a stage play? Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the old, false synopsis and edited it so that it better reflects the film. It's been a few weeks since I've seen the film so I'm sure it can be improved a lot, but I've removed anything that definitely wasn't in it and added things that definitely were. The ending I'm sure isn't correct, and something about the development of Grant and Marian's relationship could probably be added, but hopefully this is a at least a basic synopsis people can actually edit, rather than just delete outright. RhiannonAmelie (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Away from Her. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509081608/http://www.sagawards.org/PR_080127 to http://www.sagawards.org/PR_080127

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on Away from Her. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metacritic.com/film/awards/2007/toptens.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080128144240/http://www.rottentomatoes.com:80/features/rtawards/?category=drama&rank=1 to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/rtawards/?category=drama&rank=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Dec/20071227Go!013.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oscars.org/80academyawards/nominees/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302063513/http://www.caprifilms.com:80/awayfromher/ to http://www.caprifilms.com/awayfromher
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070321021907/http://lionsgate.com:80/awayfromher/ to http://lionsgate.com/awayfromher/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310215409/http://www.caprifilms.com:80/news/current/jul182006-awayfromher.html to http://www.caprifilms.com/news/current/jul182006-awayfromher.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213075009/http://www.macleans.ca:80/article.jsp?content=20060911_132947_132947 to http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060911_132947_132947

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)