Talk:Raging Bull

References to use

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



Script anecdote
Source of the script anecdote is Stephen Bach's memoir, "Final Cut".

Removing Link
I'm removing the link to the poster site. It's akin to an advertisement, and the brief synopsis it gives is redundant.--Pewpewlazers 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot
Needs extensive revision, picks up on miniscule details whilst ignoring much more significant plot details (e.g. the fights with Sugar Ray). Several mistakes ("second glitch of Vickie") and totally omits the end of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.67 (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

i know i'm getting that sorted out but you are going to have to be patient. i will take your advice into account so thank you anyway Kilnburn (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

i have since cut down much of the plot and it is now at a managable size. i'm really pleased with it and thanks for those who did those neccesary changes Kilnburn (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
This film is extensively studied in a lot of academic circles, especially film schools, most notably for the sound design. Is any of this wikipedia worthy? I'm talking about how certain sound effects are used, such as the sound of breaking glass for camera flashes and the like. Also, is the fact that Joe Pesci's ribs were broken in real life during one of the sparring scenes notable for addition here? (just as long as the source is cited?)Toquinha 18:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also wanted to add that the trivia-esque comment, "DeNiro gained 60 pounds to prepare for his role, more than any other actor has gained or lost for a role" is untrue and has been appropriately deleted. Jjmckool (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis
The topic of analysis on this page is profane, biased, and hardly relevant. Please change it.

Agreed. I haven't seen it, I was just passing by as a fan of some other Scorsese films. Wikipedia should hold a neutral opinion, and that said stuff like "it's an extremely thematic film", and the comparisons didn't seem relevant at all. It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

After removing it, I think it's fair to say that it's a start, not B class quality. It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As well it says DeNiro supported Jake LaMotta even though he is suing us, it was Joey LaMotta NOT Jake in the speech —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.25.183 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

B Class?
I have not seen the film. In turn I have not read the plot description. Criticize me if you will for taking concern in a film I haven't seen, but this seems far from "B Class", especially after I deleted the slightly irrelevant "Analysis" section. I put this up for reassesment, and would feel it appropriate if it were changed to "Start". P.S. I'm sure it's an amazing film and all, but the article had some POV issues. It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been reassessed, and it's still B Class. Perhaps the plot summary is well written (I don't know), but the other sections are meager. It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In the course of time, I think it's fair to note that I've seen it now and may take it on as a project. I still strongly object to it being B Class. Of all the sections, If find production to be the only one that's engaging. The person who reassessed it gave no clear reason as to why it should remain in this state. MwNNrules (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

it's start class material in my opinion, along with the fact there are no pictures (exception of the movie poster on the info box) and few sources making this a rather poor article. some of the content of the article also looks strangely familiar as it has maybe been copied from a book word-by-word. ihave seen the film about 7-8 times (a favourite of mine) and have got this in my work to do, it needs to be sorted out. Kilnburn (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Myspace Poll
I don't see how the opinions of sixteen year olds are relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.235.0 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For an article on a landmark film, this one has an appalling number of ungrammatical and even incoherent sentences. I've made a few changes, but the article still needs a great deal of work. A plea to potential contributors: please don't rely on others to fix up your sloppy writing. The fact that Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia is no excuse for carelessness and unprofessionalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.24.9 (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sloppy writing
The writing is very sloppy, confusing, and in many cases downright misleading. In particular, it's full of ambiguous referents and statements that seem very much out of place. 80.235.59.103 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This Title shouldnt be used
it's the name of a ride in six flags. so it has to be changed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.12.238 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

references to book The Making of Raging Bull
I have no idea who wrote these references, or who wrote the book, but currently, there are four different authors' names cited for 'The Making of Raging Bull', and surely only one (or at most two) of them could be right.

That book also apparently includes some erroneous information, as cited in the Wikipedia article: "However, when it was revealed that John Hinckley, Jr.'s assassination attempt of the then president Ronald Reagan had been influenced by his love for Taxi Driver, this hurt the chances for [Raging Bull] to pick up the Oscar."

That isn't possible. Reagan was shot March 30, 1981 -- the very day the Oscars were to be held. (The ceremony was postponed until the next day.) The Oscar ballots had already been submitted and tabulated. People may have been upset with Scorsese, but it was far too late for Oscar voters to take it out on "Raging Bull." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.151.239 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Themes
The recently-added "themes" section is a travesty; there are no proper citations, only book titles, and there are no quotes from the book, only interpretation by an editor who has a habit of offering his own opinion as though it were fact. This article could have a themes section, but only if it actually quotes sources that are then properly cited. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  12:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There are three citations in this fully researched section which are fully documented and available at many libraries. Previously Editor has apparently not read the section or read any of the three books which are clearly referenced. AutoMamet (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You do not get it. Whether I have the read the books or not is irrelevant.  If you are arguing that these books support these ideas, you need to quote the books with specific page numbers.  The rambling content of this section reads like your interpretation. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  12:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to state "Whether I have read the books...is irrelevant." If you have not read the books and citations in this fully cited edit, please refrain from editing it. AutoMamet (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comment indicates a complete failure to understand how Wikipedia operates. I suggest you stop editing until such point that you understand the policies and guidelines.  All of your actions up to this point indicate that you do not. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  11:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * AutoMamet, your Themes section is simply a personal essay you have written. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and requires sourced independent third-party reliable sources. What you have been doing is reading and compiling original-source material and adding your own opinions and interpretations about it. That would be great for a personal blog; however Wikipedia is not a personal blog, it's an encyclopedia of verifiable information, not personal interpretations and observations. I hope that makes sense. It's great that you have an interest in film and want to add your observations and analysis about films somewhere, but Wikipedia is not the proper venue. The only way for a section like this to work is to source/cite every single statement/sentence, not from original-source materials (e.g., not the film itself nor from autobiographies themselves), but from critics and reviewers and commentators, or direct statments by the filmmakers. Preferably the substantiating material should be readable online -- in other words, if it's from a review or article, post the link to the article; if it's from a book, cite the exact page number and a link to that exact page viewable on GoogleBooks or Amazon. Cite every single sentence, and every statement within each sentence, from a secondary or third-party source, and if the source is a (non-original-source) book, give the exact page number, and if it is not viewable online, include an exact quote in your footnote. Do not draw conclusions on your own or make your own observations. This isn't a place for personal film reviews. For reference on how a Themes section should read and be referenced, see E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. --Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * AutoMamet has been asking for my advise regarding some of the events that have occurred here and at The Departed. While I have expressed to AutoMamet some concerns about her/his approach, I do have to say that some of the requests above go significantly beyond Wikipedia policy. Encyclopedia articles are not literary criticism: they do not require quotations and references for every single sentence. Quotations, in fact, are only really required on talk pages (except in special cases, like really strong claims or BLP issues), and you should only require quotations if you actually believe the editor has falsified information or is incorrectly interpretting it. The section does require some more detailed information, so I do think that if AutoMamet wants to include that, we need some more specificity to the references (definitely page numbers, definitely more parts of the text cited); I share the concern that this section may be crossing over into WP:OR (or, it's sub-problem, WP:SYNTH). But I also think that it wouldn't have been horrible to tag the section rather than outright delete it; there was clearly a good faith effort to provide useful information, and sources were provided, even if they were not complete. We even have templates that specifically mark something as needing a page number or quotation. Furthermore, TheOldJacobite should not have edit warred to keep the information out (nor should AutoMamet have edit warred to keep it in).
 * At this point, I've suggested that AutoMamet draft a new version, with more specific sources and more in-line citations. Probably the easiest way is to do that in a sandbox, and then that could be brought here for discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. The reason I personally suggested quotations in footnotes for pages that were not specifically linked and readable online (and I'm guessing he probably does not even know how to find and link the viewable pages on GoogleBooks and Amazon), is that the editor has shown tendencies to interpret, opinionate, and write personal essays, and so even if he were to provide page numbers of all his citations, if he provides no way for other more experienced editors to view the sources, given his extreme lack of experience on Wikipedia and his tendencies to post personal essays rather than encyclopedic content, we could be simply dealing with more interpretation at best. Softlavender (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: Agreement with Admin above. There are 3 separate paragraphs in this theme section, each of which represents a different level of research and a different level of citation and reference material required to justify the edit. Any comments/critiques made of this edit should specify which one of the paragraphs is being discussed or criticized. Of the 3 separately edited paragraphs, paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 represent and require only material from LaMotta's own autobiography to establish them as legitimate for the discussion of their influence on Scorsese's selection of themes used for the making of this film. Paragraph 2 is the most elaborate paragraph and would require the most effort to rewrite to the standards mentioned above. It is therefore suggested in this new edit, that only paragraphs 1 and paragraph 3 from the original edit be used, which establish the parts of LaMotta's biography's which were applied by Scorsese in selecting the themes which he would come to portray in his actual film. The second paragraph would not be included in this newly re-edited version of the section. AutoMamet (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and make a draft of your suggestion in a sandbox in your user space. If you don't know how to do that, I will create one for you. Then come here and provide a link. Do not add it to the article until you first get consensus for the addition. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian, message received, and thanks for your oversight here. It is almost the only voice-of-reason comments I have seen since posting this edit. The short history for the abridged re-write draft I am posting here is that Robert De Niro brought a copy of LaMotta's autobiography to Scorsese who was at first reluctant. Scorsese then decided to hire LaMotta himself to consult after Scorsese decided he was only interested in the last half of the autobiography and what happened After the autobiography ended. This info supplement was provided verbally to Scorsese by LaMotta for the movie, and after the completion of the film, LaMotta then wrote another autobiography with the details included in the film but not in his first autobiography. These were all already documented in the original edit here but the contentious edit at The Departed Talk page has apparently sensitized everyone unduly. Since the edit is so short I am posting it here as I did with the similar re-write on The Departed Talk page discussion. This is the new version summarizing the above:

Draft:

(Themes section) Scorsese in his 1981 interview with Michael Henry indicated that he became interested only in some of the themes covered in Jake La Motta's autobiography when De Niro brought him a copy of the La Motta autobiography. The film revisits at least three of the five themes introduced in the original book version titled Raging Bull: My Story which was a 1970 memoir by middleweight boxer Jake La Motta. The five themes of the book (a facsimile of the Table of Contents taken from the autobiography itself is presented) are about Jake La Motta's life as (i) a young teenage criminal, (ii) his reformation in prison, (iii) his boxing years, (iv) his struggle with the mafia who kept the title out of reach, and (v) his jealous obsession with his wife Vickie. The film concentrates on the latter three themes introduced in the original biography, as well as partially moving into his post-retirement years. Scorsese has stated that his wanting to delete Jake's youth was done because, "In removing La Motta's youth ... he became more opaque (to the audience and more mysterious)." The final theme covered by Scorsese, which was not covered in the original book but only in the autobiographical book sequel, examines the ambiguous attempt which Jake tries to make, after his boxing career has ended, to rehabilitate his personal and social life. Virtually all of his friends and family have effectively gone their own ways, now largely separated from the influence which Jake once had upon their lives, and thematically no particular prospects appear open or promising to him as the film ends (see Sequel section below).

This is the new re-write version of the section for mark-up with citation templates as needed and as requested. AutoMamet (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Discussion of Inclusion of a new Theme section for Raging Bull
RfC: Discussion of Inclusion of a new Themes section with rudimentary comments on LaMotta's Autobiography as the primary source of the film's main themes.

Two week old discussion between multiple editors is at a standstill concerning if a Themes section should be included on this wikipage. Rudimentary start version should mention what themes and parts of LaMotta's autobiography were used in the making of Raging Bull. Section edit is included on Talk page entry immediately above. AutoMamet (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey
— &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  19:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Academy Awards for film scripts are divided into two categories and two separate awards; Those for Adapted Film Scripts and those for Original Film Scripts. In the case of Raging Bull, both the director (Scorsese) and the lead actor (DeNiro) have indicated that the LaMotta autobiography was the source adapted for the film. Credit where credit is due. LaMotta wrote the book that made the movie about his life! AutoMamet (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is about the film, which was an interpretation of LaMotta's life, this is not a biography article about LaMotta. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  13:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most emphatically. Could be the subject of or in another article, but certainly not this.
 * Note: While a survey or RfC isn't a vote, per se, it's not appropriate for AutoMamet to make it look (probably unintentionally), like there are 2 editors supporting inclusion of this text. So I just made a slight formatting adjustment so that both of AM's points lie in the same bullet point. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I deleted the two contradictory votes, since AutoMamet said they were intended as examples or "banners". Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: In posting the RfC, the original pair of Support-Oppose headings were not listed for the purpose of posting a comment but only for the purpose of providing banners for the two categories so that participants could begin to list and append their comments. When I posted the two banners I was not making any statement of my own comment and nor did I in any way mean to suggest that I Oppose the inclusion of the autobiography edit being recommended even though I signed it following the format instructions for starting an RfC. The initial post of the pair was as banners pro and contra to which participants would then append their own comments. Two days later, I posted the sole position of Support next to the banner to date, and my reason for it. The two-banner format is the standard one recommended on the RfC start-up page for all editors. AutoMamet (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fair; I didn't think that you were deliberately trying to be deceptive. I've never actually seen a set-up like you had; I think the "two-banner format" you're talking about means that people often put three level three headings (3 equal signs); one for support, one for oppose, and one for threaded discussion. They don't generally put a "null" bulleted point. But everything is good as long as we know what was actually intended. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for a variety of reasons. (1) Sources must be about the film, and must not be primary sources such as the source (biography, memoir, novel, etc.) the film was taken from. (2) This editor has an extensive history of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS and is replicating that here. (3) This editor has a history of repeated and varied disruptive editing and refusal to listen to or comprehend repeated efforts to explain Wikipedia policy to him. (4) This editor also has an extensive history of misrepresenting the facts, and therefore in my opinion cannot even be trusted to accurately represent even a quote from a book or article unless it is directly linked and viewable online (or a scanned page copy is provided). (5) But most of all, to repeat, this article is about the film, not about Jake LaMotta or his memoir(s); therefore all sources and commentary must be about and from sources about the film, not sources about Jake LaMotta. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Update for User:Qwyrxian: It appears sufficiently clear to me that after five days that a thirty year old film (Raging Bull) is not likely to receive much more comment or review. My request is that, if all are agreed, to request a possible recommendation be made regarding the quality of the edit in the presence of all of the above comments. Since you are more than familiar with all of this matter and its history, and that you are twice as experienced as anyone else on this Talk page exchange, I am acknowledging that I would fully accept your evaluation as sufficiently neutral and unbiased in any way for either posting the proposed edit, posting the edit with mods, or any other evaluation which you might place. In the absence of any objection, that you may do so anytime after midnight tomorrow, on the 23rd, providing no other comments are posted.

Post-script. Although I understand the intention in your posting your previous comments on the RfC survey above, the other editors have taken it upon themselves to make multiple copy-pastes of it on The Departed Talk page as well, as a continuing criticism of me by you in spite of your explanation of it. It was copied four times throughout the Talk page on The Departed, and on the edit history log of The Departed Talk page, also in the form of a harsh reprimand against me. Is there anything I can do to try to ameliorate the Talk page on The Departed wikipage after so much copy-paste of your statement above by the other editors? With appreciation for any attention you can give this. AutoMamet (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * RfCs generally run for 30 days, so just leave this open. We have a bot that automatically notifies random people who've signed up, so it is not unusual to have comments trickle in slowly over time. Of course, if the RfC were to close with no more change, the consensus would be obvious: not to include the suggested section. I'll take a look at the Departed talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding AutoMamet's "Post-script": I just have to point this out as yet another blatant and massive misrepresentation of the truth. "[O]ther editors have taken it upon themselves to make multiple copy-pastes of it on The Departed Talk page .... It was copied four times throughout the Talk page on The Departed" No, Gareth Griffith-Jones made ONE single verbatim copy of it when he fixed the format following Qwyrxian's lead. "[A]s a continuing criticism of me by you in spite of your explanation of it." No, it was never presented as a criticism (just a page cleanup and clarification), much less as one by Qwyrxian; it was acknowledged as being, as the edit summary distinctly indicates, "probably unintentional". "[A]lso in the form of a harsh reprimand against me." Nowhere at all in the remediation of your formatting has there been any "harsh reprimand" of you. In fact, quite the reverse: It has been acknowledged over and over that your misleading formatting was "probably unintentional", "understandable", and "inadvertent". We don't expect people who are creating their first RfC to get it perfect, but it was best for the editing to be normalized for the reasons given by Qwyrxian (and by the way, Qwyrxian's exact words were used). Softlavender (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Update for User:Qwyrxian: The comments by User:SoftL are false and look delusional. I continue to be the only one of the users among the participants who has actually read the referenced books and this is sitting badly for some reason with the other editors. User:Hearfourmewesique has tried to explain to User:SoftL with more patience than I thought was humanly possible that her/his understanding of the Scorsese quotes on The Departed Page is deeply flawed and in error. User:SoftL had apparently taken this very badly and appeared to leave the discussion for several days. Now there appears to be a monomania, a fixation on User hounding which is uncivil and looks like outright slander. The copy-paste of your RfC comments without your permission appeared four (4) times as a reprimand to me without your approval on The Departed page. It was first (1) reposted as a straight reprimand about me on The Departed page, second, (2) my comment field was then re-edited as a second reprimand to me on The Departed page, (3) The Edit history page separately repeated the reprimand a third time about me, and (4) when my own comment was re-edited it appeared another time as a full line reprimand to me on the Edit history log for The Departed Talk page again. I then brought this to your attention and asked for you to look at this yesterday. Is there a wiki policy for curtailing fixated and disturbed users like SoftL who have no sense of civility and are fixated on hounding the only participant in this discussion who has actually read the books which are being discussed? I believe I have followed all of the rules in posting this RfC. How do I report User:SoftL for uncivil conduct which appears like a deviant fixation? AutoMamet (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to counsel Softlavender, and asked that s/he removed points 2-4 above, but s/he refused. If you wish to pursue sanctions, the correct place would be at WP:ANI. However, I do have to point out that you also have some problems above--specifically, I don't think any possible reading of Softlavender's actions, even though wrong, could be called a "deviant fixation"; also, there is no requirement that anyone get my permission to copy my words--the CC-BY-SA license, in fact, means anyone is always free to do that with anything you or I write, here or anywhere else on WP. But, overall, I do feel that you bringing this matter to RfC (and at the other page) was the correct move on your part, and not in any way disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A themes section should be based on critical consideration of the film, not on LaMotta's life and career. The danger lies in synthesis and original research of LaMotta material to achieve a novel conclusion about the film. We should let film scholars provide the conclusions here. (Note that I have fixed the initial confusion created by the OP in which it appeared as if he was voting three times.) Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Update to User:Qwyrxian, thank you for trying to counsel with user:SoftL. For the present, your indication that user:SoftL was wrong in his/her comments should be clear with no immediate follow-up on my part needed there. Also, your indication that the thirty day period should be allowed to continue for this RfC was appreciated. Your other comment previously was that if the comments/opinions do not change substantially regarding opposition, that this would be a self-determined conclusion on the basis of this survey here. I have a specific question. The standard for Academy Awards committees, the world-wide authority, is that film scripts are awarded this prize on the basis of being either an Original Film Script or an Adapted Film Script (two separate awards) and that adapted film scripts need to identify their source of adaptation. My question in this specific context then would state that even if 10 or 20 or 100 wikipedians do not like this decision by the Academy Award committees, that then general "band-wagoning" of opinion here should still not mediate against what the Academy Awards committee has designated as their policy of recognition independently of wiki. My understanding is that in such cases that it is up to Admin to decide what the best thing is for wiki at the end of the day. In this case, no matter what wikipedians may like to form as an opinion, by band-wagoning or otherwise, it is up to Admin to decide if the bandwagoning represents something good for wiki in general or not. It is the Academy Awards committee that has designated the category of Best Adapted Film Script and its standards of recognition, not me, and in this case only Admin would appear to be able to avoid the obvious direction that band-wagoning of opinion would lead this Talk page discussion towards under normal circumstances. If the role of Admin is different from what I have described here then possibly you could post something to inform this situation of when only the mere bandwagoning of comments leads in directions not good for wiki in the larger picture. AutoMamet (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your perception is, only partially correct. First of all, admins don't close most RfCs--only those that are very complex, have lots of discussion, have potential to have a wide effect, and/or are very close. None of those is the case here. Second, an admin would never weigh in the rules of an outside body, as that's not relevant. Third, even if they did, that wouldn't be relevant here, as the question isn't really about whether the material goes in at all, but rather whether the extent that you wish to include it is appropriate. While this is a policy-based question (WP:UNDUE and WP:OR play in here), it's certainly not a cut-and-dried case where policy obviously favors your interpretation. Admins cannot super-vote; they may discount comments/arguments that are not based in policy, but, at least at first glance, I don't see any arguments like that here. Finally, I recommend that you not impugn other editors comments by calling them bandwagoning, as quite a number of them appear to have well-thought out reasons; those reasons may ultimately be incorrect, and ultimately not be consensus, but that doesn't mean that they aren't considered decisions made based upon other people's interpretation of policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

For User:Qwyrxian. From my threaded discussion on The Departed Talk page, i have noticed that there has been no objection and no opposition to the edit as i have presented it there for the new "Infernal Affairs" subsection, which is a recognized source for the making of The Departed. Since there is no objection there, it is my understanding that it may be presented as a valid edit for the wiki community. Short of any opposition being posted over the next day, it is my intention to post it there as a valid edit for the regular wiki community editing process. AutoMamet (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That discussion has nothing to do with this page; please don't cross discussions like this; I'll make a comment over there. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

For User:Qwyrxian. Not crossing discussion lines but there is a note for you on The Departed page from a day or two ago. Also, someone there appears to be belligerent on a one word correction i am trying to place correcting the "film TRILOGY Infernal Affairs" in the LEDE which someone is displeased about. The film TRILOGY status is confirmed by a one-click wikilink to the Lead section of "Infernal Affairs" or "Infernal Affairs III". Your previous comment to me was never to exceed three reverts after posting a new edit. Could you look at this. AutoMamet (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit is just plain wrong. This film is not based on the trilogy, it is based on the first film.  You have been revered multiple times because you are factually incorrect. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  01:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Most well-informed reviewers disagree with you. Correct version posted on The Departed new thread. AutoMamet (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Are there concerns for the civility of this discussion, and, for assessing the need to study the Autobiography by LaMotta to make effective recommendations. AutoMamet (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What kind of concerns? AutoMamet (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Raging Bull. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1953094,00.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raging Bull. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119162313/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hbio.htm to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hbio.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.parajanov.com/institute
 * Added tag to http://www.mascagni.org/faq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sugar Ray Robinson / Johnny Barnes
Just enjoyed the movie again. Seen it countless times.

Question: Has anyone considered writing a WP article for actor Johnny Barnes? There's a nice 2005 article from the NY Times  Considering his authenticity and important role in the film, isn't it worth a stub? Gprobins (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Biskind, Peter, Easy Riders, Raging Bulls
1998 or 1999. Which is it? We have both in the article. Or are we citing two different editions. If so, why, is one a revised one or a mere reprint? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)