Talk:Presumed Innocent (novel)

Adaptations heading
The heading is not mean to mean that there is always seom of each - or even one of each but that this is were any of such adaptations would go in the article if there are any. Anyway the reference is Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  08:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A template is supposed to be USEFUL; it is NOT supposed to be a straightjacket or a Procrustean bed. Obviously Wikipedia is editable and things like this are adaptable.  It is silly to insist on this kind of heading when it  clearly has no application to the present article.  Wikipedia should be edited intelligently, by humans, not by computers. Michael Hardy 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Presumed Innocent → Presumed Innocent (novel) – Novel (last 90 days) is less viewed than the film (last 90 days). Despite starring Harrison Ford, the film is not significant enough to be primary. Neither does the novel, as it was the thriller novel turned into a movie. Per WP:TWODABS, if neither topic is primary, then disambiguation page should be made. As for the title itself, there is presumption of innocence, and I'm not convinced that the current title should be treated differently from that. It could have been a redirect if not for the novel and the film. And must I insert search results if you are not adequately convinced about usage of the current title? George Ho (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support making a disambiguation page at the primary location, and indicating "presumption of innocence" prominently on it. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Why would you disambiguate when the topics are not ambiguous to one another? They are related. The film is the film of the novel. The novel will necessarily be linked in the first line of the article on the film, and vice versa. There is nothing ambiguous here because these are merely two variations of a work relating the same story, for which the novel is the work of origin. To put it another way, the primary topic here is "the story being told"; the novel and the film are merely different media conveying "the story being told". bd2412  T 13:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not always: Doctor Zhivago is now a dab page because the film is more viewed than the novel. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The film of Doctor Zhivago won five Academy Awards, and despite being one of multiple notable adaptations is probably the true primary topic of the term. Even then, it is really not ambiguous to the novel, it is an extension of the novel, and treating the topics as ambiguous is a mistake. The primary topic of the term is the story of Doctor Zhivago in whatever media it is conveyed. In the case of Presumed Innocent, the story was conveyed in a novel, and the notability of the novel was enhanced by its adaptation into a film which was not so lauded as to eclipse the original. bd2412  T 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Proposal to make the film adaptation of Doctor Zhivago was unanimously opposed some time ago. Also, the novel is less viewed than the film. But perhaps you are convinced that primacy is related to titling of topics of the same title. --George Ho (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about having the same title. It's about being different presentations of the same story, with the same characters and settings. Would you consider the film, Doctor Zhivago, as shown in a movie theatre to be ambiguous to the same film shown at a drive-through, or on TV? bd2412  T 22:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Using a question to prove me wrong, eh? Since I use the primacy argument, no point on ignoriing it. Primacy criteria are usually usage and significance here. I've proven already that people are more familiar with Harrison Ford flick than the novel. Perhaps you can vote the "film" is primary due to popularity? As for Doctor thing, I had no idea until a few years ago (or last year) that there is more than one medium based on original novel. Trying to be precise is a key to avoid ambiguity. People say either old long film or the Keira Knightley thing. --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that there is absolutely no ambiguity here. We have an article on Barack Obama; we have an article on the Presidency of Barack Obama. Arguably, his presidency is the most notable thing about him, but that would be no reason to disambiguate Barack Obama, because his presidency is an aspect of his overall notability. In this case, the film, Presumed Innocent is merely an aspect of the novel, an adaptation of it, a conveyance of its story in a different medium. bd2412  T 21:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not saying that "Presumed Innocent" is unambiguous to "presumption of innocence", are you? You're saying that two page names are distinctively different from each other? --George Ho (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, hell. I already created Presumed Innocent (disambiguation) and changed the hatnote. i'm sure that readers will find the film in prose content. --George Ho (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support There doesn't appear to be a primary topic here. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:BDD, do you consider the adaptation to be ambiguous to the original? bd2412  T 14:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They have the same title, so yes. What do you mean? --BDD (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They have the same title because they are the same work in two different media. If the film, Presumed Innocent, is shown on TV, we could as easily have a separate article on "Presumed Innocent (TV broadcast)", with some details about where commercial breaks were taken and what racy scenes were cut out to make it TV-worthy. However, we would not consider the TV broadcast to be ambiguous to the theatrical version, despite these differences in presentation. bd2412  T 20:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why must the title be associated with the some lesser known novel or the obscure hit film and be distinct from longtime general term presumption of innocence, referring to "innocent until guilty" (or "guilty until innocent")? --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you're saying, BD2412, but it sounds like what you're asking for is a merge. --BDD (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge is impossible right now. I added Reception section, although expansion is needed. --George Ho (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support moving the novel's article, but move the film article to the base title as the evident primary topic in a WP:TWODABS situation. I don't know how the nominator missed it, but Presumed Innocent (film) was viewed 34,190 times in the last 90 days, compared to 6240 for this article on the novel. The dab page is fine where it is to get readers to presumption of innocence (and several entries with no articles).--Cúchullain t/ c 02:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If the primacy of the film is reflected in sources other than the page views, I would support switching the film and the novel. bd2412  T 14:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss the stats, actually. I assumed that popularity of the film doesn't make the title sufficiently unambiguous to the film. --George Ho (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - what about Presumed Innocent (Marcia Ball album) or Enya's song? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly find reviews of that album; and/or add tracklist. George Ho (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it's not that relevant, it'd only be a blip on Presumed Innocent (disambiguation). It's really between the book and film. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support - "novel Presumed Innocent" massively outweighs "film Presumed Innocent" in Google Books. However few people read books these days and it may be distressing to be made aware that the film was based on a book (tongue in cheek), no seriously a dab seems like most WP:DAB option. Move Presumed Innocent (disambiguation) to main location.
 * Such Enya song doesn't exist. You must have misused sources from Google. The first page has no lyrics and consists of just Youtube video of John Williams cue from the film. --George Ho (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I found that myself, no evidence she sung End Credits in the film soundtrack. Irrelevant anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To me, "presumed innocent" is primarily a legal term and not a book or film title. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the original proposal per nom and User:BDD. Neither book nor film is primary, so move Presumed Innocent (disambiguation) here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Cases like this should always be disambiguated, IMHO. This way, the reader will know exactly what they are getting before they even click on the mouse. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:30, 19 October 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)