Talk:The English Patient (film)/Archive 1

Questionable Trivia
That bit about Judge Rheinhold seems incredibly suspect, though amusing. Can anyone confirm or deny? I couldn't find other references on the internet. Shannonbah 19:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nuked it (see edit summary). Cop 633 17:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are the references
Please cite the references for such a detailed analysis. Otherwise it might risk being a POV --Jaseerabubakar 08:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's definitely original research, if not directly POV. I'm going to go at this with a razor. --Slac 06:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I hacked out all the interpretative speculations and tried to keep the 'Themes' section factual. The themes of nationality and ownership are very much there in the dialogue, so I tried to simply quote the relevant lines without veering off into speculations about them. Cop 633 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignorant, arrogant Anglo-Saxons

 * German Fallschirmjäger are shown to be dropped into Tobruk. --> The first Fallschirmjäger arrived in Libya AFTER the fall of Tobruk, and they were never used in an airborne landing.
 * A Panzerjäger Marder III Ausf. M is seen in Tobruk. --> Production of this vehicle did not start before the summer of 1943.
 * German troops round up and intimidate civilians in Tobruk. --> Tobruk was a city in the Italian colony of Libya, so all civilians were Italian nationals. Technically, the fall of Tobruk to the Axis was not a conquest, but a liberation. Any suspicious Arabs would have been dealt with by the Italian police force.
 * SS officers torture prisoners in Tobruk. --> There were no SS members in Libya, apart from a few short visits, as German police forces were only used in occupied, but never in Allied countries.
 * The character played by Jürgen Prochnow is called "Major Müller". --> In the SS, there were no majors, only Sturmbannführer.
 * In any case, Prochnow is wearing the collar patches of a Standartenführer, and he is wearing them upside down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.153.253.215 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that illuminating and insulting review. Factual corrections are of merit, the claim of "Ignorant anglo-saxons" falls false, as I'm of Sicilian heritage. I'm quite certain most of the editors of this article are also not anglo-saxon. Indeed, you confuse this article with the work of fiction's flaws. Perhaps you should address this with the production team, rather than here. If I were to analyze your comments, I'd suspect you are a neo-nazi sympathizer. However, your corrections ARE valued, for historic information. Your derision is simply discarded, along with your complaint about the REPORT on a work of fiction that was NOT written by the editors who reported on that work of fiction here.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OUCH! No wonder why an earmarked article for revision continues to revert to the originally cumbersome text. What is the point of Wikipedia except as people become aware of information but to revise it so as to have a more comprehensive understanding and context of the actual work with real time. This is sad. As for being insulting, it clearly establishes that the nuance of a people in literary works would more accurately depict either what may have been adapted from the original book or introduced by the script writers. An insult? Sometimes when someone is so insular as to not realize it that type of statement can be an unexpected slap in the face just as Cher's character laid a couple on the brother of her intended in order to bring him back to her reality. A1Houseboy (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank God the Germans have always been better at the details of uniforms than winning wars, eh?86.42.202.235 (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think that the German's are fastidious with military uniforms get to know some of the more active people involved in the Renaissance faire activities here in the US that can down to the fabric content, weave and color indicate inconsistencies of what people wear to portray the milieu of the area just so that the period would be more authentically represented. A1Houseboy (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Possession of the Maps While in detention -- Unexplained
There does not seem to be a logical explanation in the film as why the British that took him prisoner did not when searching him for concealed weapons or contraband would not have found the maps and confiscated them and instead when Almasy escapes the train detention to Benghazi has the maps on him to trade to the Germans in order to fly back with Madox's plane secreted in the oasis to Katherine at Swimmers.76.170.88.72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes
ORIGINAL: In the final days of World War II, Hana, a French-Canadian nurse in an abandoned Italian monastery looks after a critically burned man who speaks English but is reluctant to disclose any personal information.

REPLACEMENT: World War II waning finds the French-Canadian Hana nursing, in a bombed Italian monastery, a critically burned English-speaking man avoiding disclosure of personal information.

EXPLANATION:

Waning means coming to an end and adequately sets the war time frame in five words instead of the eight.

"Abandoned" does not adequately convey the monastery's condition. It was abandoned, yes, but the uncertain safety of it, which may very well be a reason for it being people less, better conveyed by being described as bombed ORIGINAL: David Caravaggio, a Canadian intelligence operative and former thief, arrives at the monastery with completely wrapped hands and an acute interest in the nurse's morphine and the English patient's past.

REPLACEMENT: The Canadian intelligence operative and ex-thief David Caravaggio crashes the monastery; hands bandaged completely and an acute interest in the patient's morphine and past.

EXPLANATION:

Placing the adjectives before the noun eliminates punctuation and needless words.

C. is never mandated when remaining in German occupied Tubruk avenging trespasses, only monitor activities; so retribution is his own idea. He was never ordered to the monastery and would not be at the monastery except for his own purposes so to just "arrive" is not as impactful as the word "crashes", although welcomed by Hana. Anyway, we learn he had an ulterior purpose probably reinforced by morphine availability.

"Wrapped" is not as descriptive as "bandaged", the latter indicating some medical need rather than some unknown personal preference. In fact it sets the scene for when we learn about the amputations.

The activity at the monastery orbits the patient. The morphine is there for the patient so any sense of "ownership" should be afforded the patient since the morphine would not be there except for his use and merely administered by H. Eliminating the miss-identified association of the morphine decease the article size by avoiding words. In all likelihood, H. and C. would not be there except for the patient. Yes,"The onset of the war brings excavation at the cave to a halt, and Madox and the Count go their separate ways. Geoffrey Clifton meanwhile has discovered the affair, and seeks a sudden and dramatic revenge. He crashes his plane, with Katherine aboard, into the Count's desert camp. The wreck kills Geoffrey instantly, seriously injures Katherine, and narrowly misses the Count. He manages to take Katherine into the maps with Katherine in the cave otherwise the British would have become in possession of them when he attempt to get help for Katherine. The flight to pick up Almasy by the Clifton's certainly had to happen before the declaration of war //Almasy never said he wanted a lethal dose, instead he tipped the box of morphine vials so that many rolled toward Hana giving her an indication that he wanted leave from his condition.//

There are several difficulties following the sequence of the film because it is not chronological. Somehow, the marriage anniversary of the Clifton's has to be reconciled with the May 1939 revocation of all foreign survey expeditions in Egypt, Almasy never being asked for return of the maps before declaration of war following the invasion of Poland by Germany (September 1939), the attempt on the life of Almasy by Geoffrey as an act of revenge, the Siege of Tobruk (1941), the tragic disfiguring fiery flight to return Katherine to England for interment, transport of Almasy to Italy when that country was safe for the Allied Forces could have their troops convalesce without threat from the occupying German forces on the Italian mainland as early as the September 1943 secret armistice signed at Fairfield Camp in Sicily but only slightly as there were only some Allied troops on the mainland at that time but not in control, the retreat of German forces from southern Italy so as to leave Almasy at the monastery with some semblance of safety. Even during the time that Hana was at the monastery, the town newly freed the town square statue was bobby trapped so removal of all German threat was well into the monastery stay.

But one of the significant scenes in the movie is toward the end when Caravaggio coming to terms with his vendetta to kill those that had a part in his suffering in Toburk reverts from a real time German surrender of World War II with a reminiscence of Almasy's disfiguring flight with Katherine. So if the attempt on Almasy's life was as early as September 1939 it would not have been until 1943 that he could have been transported to Italy and ensconced in the monastery as the German's retreated southern Italy. So a new approach has to be used leaving bare much of the detail that is attempted to cover the current "married but the introduction of Almasy brings a conflict in their attachmentby the Germans with Katherine already dead aboard. That despite the repeated deaths of those with home he come into contact he survives only to come in contact with a conflict that is perceived by Caravaggio absent knowledge of the affair and Katherine's deathbed declarations and wishes and mind bent on revenge. That Caravaggio resolves his intention of retribution from torture at Toburk by leaving Almasy be. And of course the conflict perceived by Hana of when becoming attached to someone invariably leads to their death during the war, although some keepsake remains to remind her, but that it is resolved when a wartime love with Kip breaks the cycle. A1Houseboy (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I find these proposals ungrammatical and frequently inaccurate. 1. Use of "waning" is not normal English usage and ruins the lucid grammar of the sentence. 2. "Bombed" may or may not mean "abandoned" although I have some sympathy for this idea. 3. "Crashes". Strange usage that means nothing. 4. The cave paragraph proposal suffers from poor syntax. The original is clear and readable. 5. The paragraph on Caravaggio is not good English. 6. Paragraph on Geoffrey's revenge is needlessly dilatory. Just say what happens. 7. Same paragraph lacks knowledge of English usage, grammar, and syntax. 8. "The Bedouin" may be an improvement. I will include the changes that work a little. Thanks for the effort. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"Inaccurate"? In what manner. If someone decides that they do not agree with something it is somewhat gratuitous to then not state under what conditions it is that there is disagreement otherwise such a statement just sets up a ping pong string or worse yet makes everyone else go about the start of a string that you have not fully disclosed. Just as in any well written work, the who what where when and why works for me. could we avoid these types of carousel statements--going up and down and all around and getting no where. To bad the "change" was not completed in full so that we could have had a better understanding what seems to have been a detailed explanation by which it could be either supported or debunked justifiably. I am not a supporter of personification of argument. That only encourages people to be vain and vindictive. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, this is a community effort and I am a bit concerned by the statement,"I will include the changes that work a little." when it really should be expressed as "I can suggest changes and we can go from there." That way, no one person is left with the responsibility that has been reserved for the Wikipedia community--even years from now.WordWrightUSA (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

French-Canadian
The article describes Hana as being French-Canadian. She is not French-Canadian, but Italian-Canadian. She was from the Danforth neighbourhood, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. What is up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.100.4 (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the book that's true, in the movie she's from Montreal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.192.102 (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What adjacent neighborhood did Moose come since he identifies with general origin with Hana?

One of the problems with works that generate from other formats, editions, remakes is that people can easily become confused and the clarification made 3 September 2011 reminds us that not only is the detail important but so is the way it is expressed. Is it necessary to identify the question previously stated about any significance to what could be the adjacent neighborhoods of Hana and Caravaggio that might have a bearing in this article?WordWrightUSA (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Expedition Financing
Where is it that the expedition is financed by the Clifton's when in fact the plane they bring although portrayed as theirs is in fact British government property? Is this a transfer from the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting question because of the many times that I have seen the film I cannot remember such a statement or connotation being made? Leading up the meeting of Madox and Almashy and the Cliftons there seems never to be made such as statement or inferred but hopefully someone more familiar with these scenes of the film can comment. Is that fact in the book and never made part of the film? This particular issue reminds me of those "exercises" where someone decides to establish the source of something and comes away with that the person to whom something has been attributed was the creation of someone else in reference to that person rather than an organic creation of that person. I would not want Wikipedia seen to be a source that years later is found to be fallacious. That is the reason why so much emphasis is placed on providing references of a long lasting value. Can someone who has a copy of the film look at it up to the point of the arrival of the Cliftons to see if there is fact in those scenes as to the financial role of the Cliftons in the expedition? Katherine does give away when they are waiting for the return with the help of Madox that the plane is government property, not that of the Cliftons especially as Geoffrey is off mapping Africa.WordWrightUSA (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Broadcasting of TEP
Is there a way of finding our when a particular broadcaster will be airing this film so that when it appears on some national company system we can all come to an understanding about just what is what? I do not rent out films because i just cannot afford it so see them on cable. Any ways, renting a copy does not necessarily give you a full view of the film sometimes as it may be a special issue with or without some extended/cut. I know that about a couple months ago TEP was on ShowTime and it;s subsideraies for a few months. But of course now, nothing. Thanks.SharpQuillPen (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Awards
Wikipedia is not designed to provide a comprehensive discourse of all facets of a topic. Keeping this in mind, I think that including the long list of all its minor awards makes the page too cluttered. The list of awards is longer than the entire substance of the article. The Academy Awards (and perhaps the Golden Globes) seem like they would better suit the expectation of Wikipedia readers to provide key information. Afterall, they can just follow the link to IMDB for the other awards. Does this sound reasonable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.200.99 (talk • contribs) 10:25, April 24, 2006

Wikipedia and "a comprehensive discourse of all facets of a topic" is a very subjective phrase because, as I illustrate it with my US Civil War and (Printed) Encyclopedia article story. Years ago when I was getting on in school it came time to have in the house a handy reference for information but not able to afford a copy of what would be found in a municipal or school library we looked at second hand copies and came upon one printed before WWI that had an article on the US Civil War of about 30 pp. But an encyclopedia pre-WWI was probably not the most basic up to date for 1970. A 1960s copy of the same encyclopedia had a considerably smaller US Civil War article with large WWI and WWII and Korean Conflict articles. Then a 1970s copy had an increased sized Civil War article concentrating on those parts of the war that had greater significance than others nationally with additional articles on WWI WWII and Korean Conflict reduced and a large article on the Vietnam War, etc. as time progressed. As new information became understood or available there was either greater or less size to the article. It is one thing to have sources of long lasting value but it is a totally different thing about information of a long lasting value in a changing world. I say put in the awards and acclamations and let time deal with it.A1Houseboy (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to people that when honors concern The Golden Globe Award that do not use their site as a reference source for nominations because they dump all nominations after about 10 years and so only list winners. That is not good if you want to recheck a source. Does any one know of a publication that lists nominees and winners for them from the beginning?SharpQuillPen (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unrealised cultural judgments and statements in Articles
I have a serious concern about the following statement included in the plot of the article: "the Count finds an ancient Saharan cave" since it displays a cultural judgment on what role did the Count play in the "discovery" of this site. Changing of the word "finds" to "identifies" provides a more neutral connotation since even in the movie the way by which the Count is able to locate the cave is by the description provided to him by a native. Anthropologist recognize that in Western society the lack of tangible evidence such as written or published and photographic information has encouraged people to believe that something does not exist until made known to the world by such information. This fallacy is the very reason why evidence such as story telling has been accepted in the field of anthropology and interpretation of archaeological finds. The best example of this is the "discovery of the Americas when in fact those that who were from there already knew it existed and the only change was that to at least the Western world it was identified with one of the various contacts made by people from other places such as Europe including Columbus and previous to he such as the Vikings. Even Columbus used cultural prejudice in naming of the natives as "Indians" believing that he was in a place that in fact he was not. I am not saying that we should rename the Indians but that if Wikipedia, in order to be acceptable as a source of universal fact, it should see that this type of expression is either eliminated or explained and avoid an unintended "insulting" of people. If the Count was given a descript of not only the swimmers and by what geological features he could see it then in fact he provided means by which it could more systematically, within having knowledge of the world, be located. The right word shows intellectual integrity.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are right that we should avoid this fallacy, whatever you want to call it, but it seems to me your solution is not an improvement on the current text. 'Finds' doesn't mean 'discovered'. Almazy actually finds the cave, so no fallacy is involved. And 'identifies' is worse, since it seems to say that it was previously not identified, as if only a Westerner could say what it was or something. In fact, he doesn't discover it and he doesn't identify it, he finds it. Thanks very much for your attention to this important issue! --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Finds? I am sorry if what seems my approach to this particular issue seems so sensitive but when your undergraduate degree is in anthropology and you are taught by someone that was at the time of their education not the conventional candidate for a PhD you can get a more reflective mind set when it comes to the "natives" of an area and the outsiders. Now, we should know that the Count in REAL LIFE published in his 1934 non-English language book on the area a chapter on the Cave. In that book and in no other publication or manuscript form does it seem to appear that the natives told him about the site so I cannot champion the idea that he was able to map it based on a suggestion from a native. But that is real life, not the film. In the film, the Count specifically says that he was told that the Cave was in an area in which the shape of the surrounding land (I assume they really meant ridge instead of a hill or mountain) had the shape of a woman's back. That when he sees the Cave he mentions that the shadow of the ridge from the setting sun in fact did have the shape of a woman's back. This was a clue for him to find the Cave; But that is not find as in discovery, that is find as in visit. From his visit then can come publicity that makes the area known to more people and it's mapping using western techniques can make finding it more predictable instead of the natives identifying it's location as where the surrounding land looks like the back of a woman. Both systems of location use geographic information: one uses geological formation and the other uses geological measurements based on longitude and latitude. Obviously, the latter is more precise and possibly of a more enduring form but it does not have enough credibility to suggest that in the film if the Count was told about the existence of a Cave with Swimmers makes any visit that he may make there never a discovery because others know about it although they may not have manuscripts or books by which to show western definitive fact. If we apply a western definition of fact on things that others know about but just do not have in tangible form except what is in their memory or songs or stories then we are just imposing our cultural bias on another which does not detail a description of their experience similar to a western culture. That is why, when I say that any word that connotes discovery is presumptive and possibly offensive to those that knew before the outsiders appeared. The joke is on those that think they are more familiar with another culture; that is the fallacy76.170.88.72 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)76.170.88.72 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said, I agree with you but you have the solution backward. To find something is not to discover it. Just as when you want to go to a particular restaurant, someone gives you directions, then you go there -- you found it with the directions. That's ordinary English usage. When you found the restaurant, you didn't identify it, because it was already identified. The Count doesn't identify the cave, he finds it. Thanks for your attention to this issue, but lose the attitude. There are a lot of smart editors here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up such a tragic example, but that very situation brings up the issue that the frame of mind has so much to do with the interpretation of words used. One of the problems parents encountered with the downing of the twin towers in NYC was that the repeated collapsing's being aired were viewed by children as reoccurring incidents and not rebroadcasts. So to someone that has the frame of mind that they not knowing of someplace then coming upon it or coming upon it have thus "discovered" it does support the view that the connotation of the word is just as significant as the action to be represented. A thesaurus tells us so; synonyms and antonyms tells us so. So I am not particularly satisfied that the "sole" word "finds" is sufficient to convey the idea, absent any inclusion that Almashy was told about the Cave by the indigenous people, merely by the use of the word "finds"? And that others absent Almashy's story can fully discern for themselves just what is the unference of the use of "finds". That would be a fundamental reason to select the appropriate neutral word. "Finds" is not so neutral.

Before I end my thoughts, in the world of negotiation and understanding it seems that in veritably it is best to chastise yourself rather than others so in order for Wikipedia to achieve its intentions please when one feels compelled to say something along the lines of "but lose the attitude" that it just might be best to write it down on a piece of paper and eat it than to say or write it. If it should be referred to as biting one's lips or inside cheek or whatever, really is not a concern. Just because one may not be face to face does not make aggression any more useful or appropriate and if it is repeated too often can reflect upon the person.WordWrightUSA (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm open to improvements, but 'identifies' is worse than 'finds', which is about as neutral as you're going to find. "Where is the restaurant?" "On Main Street." "Okay, now I found it." Since we're not using the word 'discovered', it seems like we're not saying that he discovered it. Since he found the cave, it seems accurate to say he found it. Since he didn't identify it, it seems false to say he identified it. So by all means offer an alternative if there is one that's true and accurate to what happens in the movie. Thanks very much. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Let it be "maps and explores" as that neutrally expresses and describes just what was Almasy's role with knowledge about the Cave before he saw it personally and his ability to make it known to the world outside of its native area. End of issue.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Mapping is a Western cultural imposition on places they are ignorant of. Exploring is a euphemism for genocide since Columbus, as I'm sure you're aware. All we can accurately say is that Almasy sees the cave. I'm sure you understand how repugnant it is for you to pretend that only a Westerner can map or explore an ancient site. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is it that LimeyCinema1960 says that mapping with longitude and latitude is NOT a western cultural tool? As if Ring Cinema's statement about WordWrightUSA was not enough discombobulating. Since many other cultures have taken on the use of longitude and latitude for mapping locations the activity itself is not detrimental to those people. Sorry to say that your sincerity about bringing up Columbus and genocide losses it's appeal when your actions and words could be viewed as disruptive. Exploring is not a euphemism for genocide since Christopher Columbus because not all anthropologists, archaeologist, ethnologists and all the other appropriate cultural and animal scientists have developed the same reactions with natives. Some have developed and maintained very clear and strong relations that have helped build knowledge with these people for many years. If you wish to use the word repugnant then be it for the description of your own actions that bring disrepute. I would never use "sure" in place of "certain" because one has a colloquialism that best not be used in writing. And I would never, if your statement were true, use "pretend" to convey the idea of imply which is a form of pretending but not like fairy tales and such. What a disappointment and embarrassment on your part. What is your next move? Plead confusion, ignorance or transfiguration? SharpQuillPen (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems such a waste of everyone else's efforts to have gone through all this discussion and then when as it appears by your own conclusion that a word be used, for YOU to come to the new conclusion that "ABSOLUTELY NOT". Are we to wait for YOUR decision or our consensus? Remind us, just where is it that your name is designated the maker of all decisions rather than a community consensus of those that have been involved with this page?

I never said that "FIND" had to be used. You said the word, and that it was wrong (which I never disagreed), you implied it through continued reiteration infinitum but again, I never said it. Mapping and exploring has never been a solely reserved prerogative western cultural trait otherwise there would be countless studies made of ancient maps and ancient compilations made over time memorial since it would all be in some European language, but it is not. Instead, there are countless non-European language maps and compilations of information. Do you disagree with that in some manner? I would not want to portray words on your behalf as has been done for me.

Now by the time of Almasy the use of longitude and latitude was in wide use all over the world. Maybe not by every single person but certainly by those that sought to more definitively distinguish one location over another. Amelia Earhart seemed to have found longitude and latitude helpful although we do not know of her absolute location following disappearance. For some reason I do not get from you the idea of respecting consensus. Forgive me for saying it but for me it is a true and accurate statement. Does that sound familiar? I seriously do not accept that non-Europeans would consider it an affront to their culture to use longitude and latitude as a means of measuring and mapping in order to better predict location.

I am bewildered by the use of "OF" at the end of the statement: "Mapping is a Western cultural imposition on places they are ignorant of." That is a rather confusing statement. I will let you work on that. And "Exploring is a euphemism for genocide since Columbus." I hate to bring it up in this particular discussion but I believe I have read something of that sort in an autobiography of Malcolm X? I am certain that you do not agree with his manner of thought and action?

There does not seem much more point to continue with this line of thought as it seems that as soon as something reaches a consensus some other confusion is lobed into the session. So I will just wait for an obvious reply and make the best of what confusion it attempts to accomplish.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"See and explores" is a good choice to identify just what role Almasy had in the Cave issue. It was the natives that told him about it although they did use their relevant descriptive term of the back of a woman rather than "10 degrees North by Noirthwest".SharpQuillPen (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Using this forum to defame people. At the time, I realized that some outrageous statements had been made particularly toward me and i was upset by them and did not know to what extent it was necessary to address it because to tell you the truth, they were so out of the blue that I somewhat thought the person who wrote them was being frivolous. But after reading them again, and again, I got a better understanding about them. My question is after reviewing my statements about native people just where is it that I said outright or subliminally that only westerners would map or explore an ancient site? Also, at professional symposiums and conferences the term "findings" is by far the most selected word to designate just what conclusions or new discoveries have been made either by the speaker or in that field of study. I have even heard it in court testimony by expert witnesses. It all connotates, not getting there, but what is new, a discovery. "Repugnant" is a very strong word to characterise something about others. Again, just how did this come about?LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that you can see a pattern of making out of left field statements by "Ring" with the following reply would served but for only to question your credibility: ":I notice you're not interested in the substance here. Your personal attacks are out of order. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)"

Unfortunately, "Ring" went way off base with the one in question with this section. Talk about subliminal connotation. Being a historian for the past 30 years working with people usually in the most dire of straights, stress and confusion, when they come to you for a solution a whole game plan has to be developed so that you do not encountered dead ends or other road blocks. Since there has not been any clarification from "Ring" about that statement I assume that it is totally believed and accepted prima facie without regret because there have been several assertions of being true and factual. Also, since "findings" is so much used in scientific presentations (including publications) totally disregarding the connotation that comes from the base of that word really begs the question and shows an unrecognized personal bias, or lack knowledge or understanding capability. I too am stumped by "Ring's" repugnant statement because if someone raises the concern and then they are accused without bases it makes one wonder about why was the statement made? There use to be as time when the people who had the power imposed one acceptable answer. Since then, we have learned so much that we now know that in order to better reflect the "absolute" state of being requires expressing it as part of a continuum or range. That a culture has to be viewed bot by standards of other cultures but just what features make up that culture. That the ability of natives to give Almasy an oral description of the location indicates that the site was already known and they would find it in their area according to your own ways. But for Almasy, in order for that site to be known outside the area and for those outside the area to then verify Almasy's observations and possible conclusions, commonly referred to as has been pointed out as findings, then some other means will be needed for people from further distances to get to or point to a map to show where one would have to go to see it. It might take you a bit more longer to get someplace such as the Cave if all you had was the description "the back of a woman" and, even say, that you were in South Africa? But you are going to have to see what ever examples of geology that appear as the shape of the back of a woman to find get to the one that has the Cave. Even a GPS system would use longitude and latitude to locate a site. That is not an imposition of one culture on another but as has been previously mentioned the difference between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, or any other two items. No one ever said that the natives were forced to locate the Cave by longitude or latitude but maybe for whatever "bases of experience" of "Ring" that is what was erroneously perceived? Talk about going on the limp before you cut through it all to find that you are on the excess rather than the main part of that branch and accusing someone of having made repugnant statements. Yikes! All over the word "Finds" and one's own etymology capabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1Houseboy (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not Cairo
"... then begins his scorching three day walk back to Cairo and help." - no, because he is then arrested and put on a train going "north to Benghazi" - this had to before the Siege of Tobruk in 1941 (the Germans later took Tobruk in mid 1942, when Moos is tortured).86.42.203.91 (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The events of the film don't mesh easily with reality. The desert war didn't begin until the Italians invaded Egypt in autumn 1940, a year after the war began (Italy joined in the war in June 1940, as France was collapsing, so nobody in Egypt in autumn 1939 would have thought war likely to appear on their doorstep soon). Commonwealth forces flung the Italians back and overran Benghazi in autumn 1940, only to lose it to Rommel in spring 1941. They controlled Benghazi briefly again in early 1942 after the first (failed) siege of Tobruk, then did not control Benghazi again until the end of 1942, when Montgomery threw the Axis out of Libya altogether after Second Alamein. I'm not even sure there was a railway into Benghazi - the Italians had been contemplating building a Tripoli-Benghazi railway when the war distracted them. There were railways in Egypt as far west as Mersa Matruh, but supplies in Libya had to be carried painstakingly by coast road and desert track. Benghazi wasn't a major port, and the Mediterranean was not easy to sail through for either side. And why on earth would a man wounded in North Africa be being sent all the way up Italy?Paulturtle (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Also the film shows German paratroops landing on Tobruk when they capture it in June 1942. I very much doubt this is true. Last major German paratroop drop was Crete in spring 1941, although some paratroop units, including Ramcke's paratroop brigade, were being husbanded for the invasion of Malta in 1942 (which never happened). Ramcke's men were used as ground troops in North Africa from July 1942.Paulturtle (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's just about feasible that the crash happened soon after Operation Compass, including areas south of Benghazi in February 1941; but it only allows 1 month for the Count to establish his camp near the cave before Rommel's first offensive. Or after Operation Crusader at the end of 1941, when again Rommel counterattacked within a month. But in both cases would the British really have allowed a Hungarian (i.e. Axis since 1940) citizen to wander about so close behind their front? He'd have been interned. Even so it's a great film.86.42.202.235 (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

He went to for help. A1Houseboy (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the film is that there are scenes of remembrances or recall without any act to set the time frame. This very well may have happened with the editing style in which it was done--a silent rough cut was made before working on the sound in order to establish a better flow between transitions. The only time frame we have for the period during which he gets burned is that the Germans control territory between the camp and the British controlled area. Someone with more information about where were the Germans and when would give a better understanding of that off-screen time frame. We do know that the Cliftons were flying under the guise of picking up the Count but it is a two seat plane so where, on the return to Cairo, is the Count going to sit? And as for the time frame as to when he is on the transport train to Tobruk someone familiar with detention activities of the British at the time would better be able to give us a time frame with that. His time away from Katherine was a minimum of 3 days since that is how long it took to get to the small town. And presumably, he would attempt to return within a reasonable time for her to be alive. I would think that the burn flight had to be no later than 9/39 when war is declared otherwise why would the plane be used for civilian purposes rather than solely military with war declared? But that would also mean that he was incapacitated by the burns for about 6 years.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a note: just read a non-Wiki synopsis of the book which says that he was burned in 1944 which of course applies to the book not the film. Of course, in the book he does not return for her until after collaborating with the Germans. So just goes to show how much difference with the adaption and editing style.A1Houseboy (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Little Knowledge?
Now, I am not a historian on WWII history but in just what frame of mind can it be expected that any British ex-patriot would not be aware or knowledgeable about the brewing war especially in of all places Egypt where the British had a primary reason for concern since they had control of the Suez Canal? Now, I can understand if the present wording is by an American but to Britain's of the time and particularly to the powers that be such as the Foreign Office, if the crises over Germany's unification activities of ethnic German's was not of such a significant concern Macmillan never would have personally met with Hitler. Mind you, the then current British ambassador had long ties with Britain's movers and shakers, served in Japan just after the war with Russia, in China in 1916 following the fall of the Emperor and it's political turmoil, Russia in 1920 when political structure within the country had yet to be settled with some sense of continuity and then back to China when political unification had yet to be established. Even someone with an academic approach to life may not have been a politico but certainly aware and possibly not very interested. But little knowledge? That is a stretch. These people are in the British Embassy in Cairo. What, they are living in a vacuum? And to some that would be incredulous. Unconcerned would be more apropos than little knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Next time I see the film i will have to pay attention to the nuanced associations between those in the expedition gang and the public officials to get a better understanding about just how isolated they were or just did not have any interest in the political tensions in Europe. I talked with a woman that worked with the US Embassy in Mexico and she said that the staff would get advisories everyday about which personnel from other embassies they had to avoid all in order to uphold whatever level of relationship there was at the time. That one particular employee when the US had friendly relations they would occassionally socialize but then when it changed each was never invited to the other's embassy for events and that when they were going through a department store and realize the other was in the short distance they just nodded to each other and moved into different directions. So if these were employees two people were employees in the 50's 60's just how was the Cairo diplomatic world in pre-WWII?SharpQuillPen (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Navigating the WWII portions of Wiki without an understanding of that whole bit of history can be daunting but I finally found within Wiki a summary of the Egyptian area during that part of the military actions: In 1937, the Nyon Conference was held. Both Italy and the United Kingdom "disclaimed any desire to modify or see modified the national sovereignty of any country in the Mediterranean area, and agreed to discourage any activities liable to impair mutual relations."[18] Italian diplomatic and military moves did not reflect this agreement.[19] In the aftermath of the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, both British and Italian forces in North Africa were reinforced.[20] Due to various Italian moves, in July 1937 the British decided "that Italy could not now be regarded as a reliable friend" and in consequence preparations began to bring "the defences of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea ports up-to-date".[19] In 1938, a weakened armoured division was established in Egypt[20] and further army and air force reinforcements were dispatched.[21]

With rising tension in Europe, in June 1939, the United Kingdom established Middle East Command in Cairo to provide a centralized command to the various British army units within the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre.[22] However, all three branches of the British military were made equally responsible for the defence of this area.[23] The authority of this army command would stretch to include Aden, British Somaliland, Cyprus, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Greece, Libya, Palestine, Iraq, Sudan, Tanganyika, Transjordan, Uganda and the shores of the Persian Gulf.[24][25][26] If necessary, command would be exerted as far away as the Caucasus and the Indian Ocean. The overall purpose of the command was to be "the western bastion of defence of India", keep British supply lines open to India and the Far East, and keep the Middle Eastern oilfields out of Axis hands.[26] Major-General I.S.O. Playfair comments that "in spite of the distances" the campaigns that were fought did not appear as "neatly separated areas of operations" they were "all one".[27]

Upon establishment of this command, it was ordered to co-ordinate with the French military in the Middle East and Africa as well as liaise with the Turkish General Staff and possibly, at a later date, the Greek General Staff.[28] On 19 October 1939, the Treaty of Mutual Assistance was signed between the United Kingdom, France and Turkey;[29] Following the signing of this treaty, all branches of the British military were authorized to begin discussions with the Turkish general staff, and a further conference was held during March 1940.[30] Within a week of the Italian occupation of Albania, both France and the United Kingdom "announced they had promised to give all the help in their power if Greek and Rumanian independence were threatened and if the Greek or Rumanian Government considered it vital to resist."[31]

Initially, British forces in the Middle East were ordered to maintain the status quo, and all moves should be non-provocative.[32] Following the defeat of Poland, the threat of an Axis attack from the Balkans against British positions in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean region became a serious possibility.[33] In late 1939, with the assumption that the United Kingdom would soon be at war with Italy, planning began for attacks to capture Bardia and Jaghbub, both inside Libya. In addition preparation began, within Egypt, to be able receive reinforcements.[34] Preparations to reinforce the Iraqi Army were made, and the Palestinian security forces were to be dwindled down to the minimum requirements. Likewise, British forces in East Africa were tasked with reviewing operations for the purpose of destroying and dispersing Italian forces and support local risings, all in support of the main Allied offensive, which was planned to be launched from French Somaliland. Troops in Sudan, were also asked to consider launching operations against Kufra in southern Libya.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean,_Middle_East_and_African_theatres_of_World_War_II

So if the idea from the movie is that they were not "knowledgeable" then it would appear that a better connotation for expressing that draft view is '"not interested."' Especially, when the British had to protect Their CANAL!LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Vaporized
Can any one with definitive knowledge advise as to when in the film is it established that Katherine is vaporized by the fiery plane crash? I know that it is said in the book but I do not remember it being established, Did Almasy say so with his pre-death recollection with Caravaggio?A1Houseboy (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The language is in the book but it is not in the dialogue typescript that was referenced earlier today. It should be taken out until it is proven. To say that her body vaporized is mere speculation since it appears that the Bedouin did not recover her body. Wikipedia wants statements made in its articles to be substantiated with referencers and as such that statement is hearsay. We have no idea what happened to her even if the plane went down in a fiery crash. Fact is fact and vaporized is not support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordWrightUSA (talk • contribs) 20:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

the dashing Hungarian
Some kind of issue in the lede's story summary where there needs to be a connection made for the reader between the burn victim and the dashing Hungarian. They are the same person, but if you haven't seen the movie you wouldn't know without being told. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me attempt to understand the question posed about not knowing if one has not seen the movie?

"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burn victim in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell the end to the dashing Hungarian archaeologist.

As far as I can tell the burned person is the one that has sacrificed which brings his end as a dashing Hungarian archaeologist.

What more is there necessary to indicate that the Hungarian archaeologist was dashing and now is burned?

The phrase "he had been" makes reference to the past tense of his dashingness but so does brings to an end? Sounds both repetitive and redundant.

If someone is confused as to who is the archaeologist by the end of the sentence may show there is a problem in the sentence before you get to the end.

Actually, as concerns a plot, that sentence alone can stand appropriately and represent the movie in whole without giving away the story line.

Maybe, the sentence should be:

"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burned man in the closing days of World War II Italy who, as a dashing Hungarian archaeologist, sacrificed to save his love and instead spells their end." LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So you recognize that it is necessary to tell the reader that the Hungarian and burn victim are the same person. I agree. To screw up your draft the way you are screwing up the current draft, it would read: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burned man in the closing days of World War II Italy and a dashing Hungarian archaeologist who sacrificed to save his love and instead spells their end." You see how the reader can't tell that the Hungarian and the burn victim are the same person? That's what you're doing to the current draft. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not be so hasty to speak on someone's behalf especially if a statement is found to not accurately reflect one's views or intentions. Wikipedia has nothing to gain by personalizing issues. That just creates animosity rather than consensus. I would avoid it as an attempt to champion a view. I would like to hear from Limey since is the phrase "dashing Hungarian archaeologist" needed? Since, in what manner or place can a man in whites or blacks or a woman in frock never be but dashing or elegant? Maybe, avoiding the use of "you" or "your" would help better reflect upon the issue rather than from whom it derives? Look at the language of Limey: "Let me attempt to understand THE question posed about .......?" Never was it expressed as: "Let me attempt to understand YOUR question posed about .......?" Language is a very important tool; let us use it for the best purposes of Wikipedia.WordWrightUSA (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"So you recognize that it is necessary to tell the reader....." Let me see if with my limited grey matter and expression I can make a point. We are all sitting at table waiting to eat ice cream. We have two types: chocolate and vanilla. So if it is said, "Have the vanilla!" Does that imply there is something wrong with the Chocolate? Sorry. No, since it is just another choice. So, I do not think that it could be said that as has been presumptively offered on my behalf that we agree? It would be cruel to let that be under a cloud of speculation. Also, I would never combine in a statement "current draft" as draft implies it is up for discussion when in fact the implication of the statement from which it is taken is being unnecessarily questioned, thus final. Such as, A little jumbo scrimp. Is what if wanted is a little bit of jumbo scrimp? Or a little sized jumbo scrimp?LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm accurate in my comments and simply factual so it's not clear what you're talking about. The reader needs to be told that the burn victim and the Hungarian are the same person. I thought you understood that now. It's obvious, but your earlier mistakes seemed to indicate that you didn't get it. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

One can have a perception and express it, and for some implement it but that does not make it viable. Is not that what Hitler and his gang found about degenerates and conquering the world? Some may say that is delusion. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimeyCinema1960 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Mary Queen of Scots seem to be both accurate and factual in her actions about the over throw of her captain but did that make them any more appropriate to the continued effectiveness of Elizabeth?LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You should know that I showed your edit to a few friends of mine who are professional writers. They laughed at your mistake. I guess when it comes to Wikipedia, you are the problem. Good luck with that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Any nullification sourcing from you provides much more indication of what value it holds and not all "professional writers" get the same rewards.WordWrightUSA (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What on earth do you think you're saying? Limey made an obvious mistake and he hasn't figured out how to correct himself. That's his problem. Why don't you try to help the poor fellow? He really needs it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not here to actively make enemies and disrupt others. All I can say is that I reiterate my statement and that to yours, "Take on a world with no problems, you take on problems and stand alone." That is what and as for help, may I suggest look in the mirror? (No, not the lyric.) The obvious can be so in plain sight. There are far greater issues in the world that deserve far lesser attention that seems not to be your gig. It can be interesting to note that with reality shows, those "People's Court" and Chat shows that have people either talk about their private problems and situations in public in hindsight probably had best been left to privacy. Now the world knows that they have acted either idiotically or really do despite their denials treated others as such. This page is part of the Wikipidea community effort. Not the "Ring Cinema" publicity campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordWrightUSA (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I notice you're not interested in the substance here. Your personal attacks are out of order. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am shocked that this sort of statement would ever be appropriate for a Wikipedia article Talk page and if ever there was an appropriate moment for it to be statement would be for the private grievance process that any organization of value would recognize and have previously established if a need have developed. Anyone that would feel comfortable dealing in this particular way I would hope would realize their misjudgment. This type od action poisons minds and unsettles people that are in a setting that is of a making not of their own. Now as for what you said: "I notice you're not interested in the substance here. Your personal attacks are out of order." Why on earth would anyone say such a conceited and probably self-serving statement especially when that seems to be in reply to someone cautioning you about what you say of others who replied to your reasoning of an issue and were not swayed. Not only that but that YOU felt compelled not to rest your argument for an issue on your own efforts but to bring in others to whom YOU showed their work and seemed more than happy to return an unfavorable review.

If I were charged with building support for an issue and wanted that effort thought on the reasons I presented then I certainly would not say that your work is no good because others have told me. What makes you think that what others not in the process of that deliberation trump the work of others? Was this brought on because someone was so forthcoming in an attempt to check your ulterior motives with the statement: "Any nullification sourcing from you provides much more indication of what value it holds." Especially when that same person says, "I am not here to actively make enemies and disrupt others. All I can say is that I reiterate my statement and that to yours, "Take on a world with no problems, you take on problems and stand alone."

You are a trouble maker! And probably a sour sport. If any one is not interested in the efforts of Wikipedia is would appear just by your effort in this one section by itself. You can cry wolf only so many times before irritation precedes you. You just may have shown your true colors. Am I to encounter this type of motive in every article in Wikipedia or are your type in the single numbers and far and few between? Can anyone else speak to this. How should it be reported to the Amins at Wiki for at least review and potential resolution.

For some reason my name will not appear at the endSharpQuillPen (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear! showing my work to others? Well, I do hope that to whomever this discussion was shown realised that essentially, although it seems from what emerged on your side, that they were far more complete than really the draft format.

"Limey made an obvious mistake and he hasn't figured out how to correct himself. That's his problem. Why don't you try to help the poor fellow? He really needs it. --Ring Cinema" Well dear, just what is the mistake made? Well, beyond miss taking my writing as male rather than female otherwise my parents most likely would not have named me Muriel.

It must have come as very disconcerting that WordWrightUSA said that "I am not here to actively make enemies and disrupt others. All I can say is that I reiterate my statement and that to yours, "Take on a world with no problems, you take on problems and stand alone." That is what and as for help, may I suggest look in the mirror? (No, not the lyric.) The obvious can be so in plain sight." This really is tragic to not only be disruptive but to be found out by your own acts. That is sad. I do not want to embarrass you any more.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess not all English speakers master the past perfect continuous. Sorry you got it wrong but that's how it is sometimes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I refuse to participate in this useless effort to continue that pettiness exhibited by that statement. That is both accurate and factual. WordWrightUSA (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As best exhibited by that honorary American: "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's funny that you can't see your mistake since you got it right in your alternate draft. Take another look at my edit there and you might figure it out. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you not stop? I could not believe what I have read since basically cease posting to this article once I encountered my experience before all these others seemed to chime in on the "talk" page. I am not surprised. Going on and on and on as if some misplaced perception about integrity is based on having the last word. That is pathological and best be left elsewhere. I hope someone with more of the "know" of Wikipedia has reported this. "Personal attacks"? This has got to be the most incredulously insincere and cry wolf statement.A1Houseboy (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not a comment on the substance of the matter. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my.WordWrightUSA (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"MY EDIT" I believe that the record shows that the point being attempted here by so many others is that improvements have been made to the article by others which then have been reverted by you so to say "my edit" just goes to show some unwarranted aspiration of article possessiveness that if something does not fit your perception or scenario then out it goes. A review of the changes of the article will point this out. That it seems that not until you lodged a complaint about article stalemate that others have been able to contribute to the article in the established nature and spirit of Wikipedia without resulting reverts made by you. So, I assume that whatever edit YOU have made is acceptable to YOU and will remain unless YOU object and You find it objectionable and thus characteristically revert it? In fact, it has been only since the notice of stalemate that I have seen changes occur to the article that makes it all the better when in fact those same changes prior to the notice of stalemate endured until being reverted to the text that previously existed. So if the current happenstance of not reverting changes so quickly is an attempt to show that you are open to discussion and changes is feeble. The electronic record of this article will show this. That is accurate and factual.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it needs to be explicit that the burn victim and the "Hungarian archaeologist" are one and the same. If editors are dissatisified with Ring's version then maybe they should attempt integrating the information in another way, because if you haven't seen the film the current version is potentially confusing. Betty Logan (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

SUGGESTION Then maybe the following would suite everyone: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a, once dashing, now burned Hungarian archaeologist in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spells their end.

I have never liked using the word "victim" for describing any one other than as the result of a crime, unless of reasonable, purposeful intent, because the word has an infliction tone for the "result" than the result of that which follows just what happens. Generally in a state of war one defends themselves and the inpersonal use by the German anti-aircraft artillary intends to eliminate the percieved threat but it really is not intended to inflict death by flame. Otherwise they would be using flamethrowers which if shot into the air really would not be very effective. Flamethrowing toward caves or other geologial hiding formations or thickets or hedgerows would be use of flame to thwart the enemy but not necessarily with the intent to inflict pain and discomfort but elimination--death.

Almashy sacrifices his life in order to get back to the Cave. He sacrifices his integrity giving the British maps to the Germans. When he finds her dead, he sacrifices his life in order to fulfill her wish to be interned in the garden of her English coastal garden which would take him over German-occupied teritory. In that effort she ends by her body vaporizing in the crash and he with his eventual death after being horribly burned in the crash.

Better yet, I would suggest: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a once dashing now burned Hungarian archaeologist in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices spell their end to save the woman he loves." WordWrightUSA (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good but then I tried numerous times to contribute to the plot as well as other sections and repeatedly was reverted from what appeared to be only one person. Does each article have a designated lead editor? In fact I was told that all my suggestions were useless with a string of composition terms. All the best!A1Houseboy (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Just took another look at the article and would suggest: 'The English Patient 1996) is a World War II theme romantic drama film adaptation by the Academy Awards lauded Anthony Minghella (director/writer), based on the novel of the same name by Sri Lankan-born/Canadian writer Michael Ondaatje. Ondaatje worked closely with the filmmakers.'

'The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a once dashing now burned Hungarian archaeologist in the closing days of war in Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell their end.'

By placing WWII up at the beginning makes virtually unnecessary any more continued mention of WWII as that is the time setting leading up and including the war. Excellent suggestion WordWright! I am certain that will work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1Houseboy (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

On second thought the following just might be better so that people are aware of immediately of the taking place of the film in both northern Africa and Italy:

'The English Patient (1996) is a North African/Italian Campaign of World War II themed romantic drama film adaptation by the Academy Awards lauded Anthony Minghella (director/writer), based on the novel of the same name by Sri Lankan-born/Canadian writer Michael Ondaatje. Ondaatje worked closely with the filmmakers.'

The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy, before and during the war in northern Africa, unfolds through the story of a once dashing now burned Hungarian archaeologist, in the closing days of war in Italy, whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell their end.'A1Houseboy (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The suggestions by Wright and A! appear to be very inclusive about what needs to be said. It seems to integrate into a more flowing statement what needed to be said.

Personally, not knowing all the little details one might when you grow up in a particular environment learn, there is a lot that is need to become familiar in order to get a better understand as to how to place what happens in the film with real life since there are some scenes that all you know is that they followed in the film but you do not know during when so you just have to accept on nuance. I am not saying that one should take the film as "history" but it is a learning tool in order to figure out if something was true or possible or far-fetched. At least now i can go into a reference source and start with particular segment names of WWII instead of reading from one end to the other of a WWII book that says, it began with Poland and ended with the surrender.03:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The dispute resolution referee has offed the following which is directly from that form so that all can see:

'''"As I see it, the problem with the sentence in question is complicated by the fact that it is a run on sentence. Could we start by agreeing that it should be broken into two sentences (I'm using the version of the sentence which is currently in the article, rather than that set out by Ring Cinema, above):

"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy, unfolds through the story of a burn victim in World War II Italy. A once dashing archaeologist, his sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end."

How about that? If we can agree on that much as a framework, we can then talk about any desired additional changes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)"'''

I think that is is more than purposeful.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This sentences make it appear that her was burned in Italy during World War II: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burn victim in World War II Italy, a once dashing archaeologist whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end."

Otherwise
Just as Sharp said, if you initiate it, it stays; if someone changes it, you revert. What type of game is it that you want to play here? Otherwise is opposite and is in way vague. When someone accuses you of being mean and you reply, "it is otherwise." there is absolutely no indication of vagueness. That is what we have here.

The "draft": "Caravaggio lost his thumbs to interrogation by a German Army officer and believes the Count is the last culpable party he needs to avenge. He accuses the English patient of betraying the British but the burn patient explains that it was the other way around."

Changed: "Caravaggio lost his thumbs to interrogation by a German Army officer and believes the Count is the last culpable party he needs to avenge. He accuses the English patient of betraying the British but the burn patient explains that it was otherwise."

Anyone else care to comment?WordWrightUSA (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That reads well. The example shows how it cannot be confussed or vague. It would have been better to have just clarified that Almasy being Almasy was not a transgression instead oof changing the whole sentence with that ackward ending. There is just something about serntences that end in that manner that may follow "conventional" rules but it just sounds so ackward. And the substitute follows conventional rules. Or are we going to have another dispute because I can go on for a few more screens to have enough discussion for it to meet the dispute requirement?LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Laughable. You actually don't know how to use a noun phrase and have created a fragment.


 * So funny! It's not the poorly worded, vague and almost meaningless "otherwise". It's a particular way. Wow, you two are pompous. If only you were as smart as you think you are. As it happens, I have mastered the past perfect continuous and you two haven't, so I guess that makes my English more expert. Sorry. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bust your bubble:

"As I see it, the problem with the sentence in question is complicated by the fact that it is a run on sentence. Could we start by agreeing that it should be broken into two sentences (I'm using the version of the sentence which is currently in the article, rather than that set out by Ring Cinema, above):

"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy, unfolds through the story of a burn victim in World War II Italy. A once dashing archaeologist, his sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end."

It must be a blow to have your masterly work criticized by an attorney as a run on sentence.

I think that there was a pervasive air that you were more aware of the movie's content until you attempted to champion solely on speculation the idea that since gasoline was not featured in the script that then since it was for a plane then the maps had to be traded for airplane fuel. Thank goodness a transcript of the film was available and all the other unsupported portions of the plot have been changed accordingly.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is getting funny! So today's elementary school lesson in English grammar will focuse on two subjects: the complete sentence and the noun clause. A complete sentence has a subject and a verb. The noun phrase "A once dashing archaeologist whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end." is not a complete sentence. (Hint: it doesn't lack a subject, it's missing that other thing.)


 * Now, you may have heard of the noun clause, a clause that functions as a subject, object or complement. It is a commonplace among native English speakers, who use it to express relationships through sentence structure. The technique in the case before us involves the use of a simple sentence and its appositive noun phrase which includes a dependent clause.


 * Stanley Fish expresses it well: "The subordinating style orders its components in relationships of causality (one event or state is caused by another), temporality (events and states are prior or subsequent to one another), and precedence (events and states are arranged in hierarchies of importance)."

(Stanley Fish, How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One. HarperCollins, 2011)


 * So, in the one sentence summary, the first part of the sentence tells us there is a burn victim in the story, and then we give the reader more. We introduce a noun phrase (starts with "a dashing...") and attach a dependent clause to it that tells the reader that he was also someone else earlier (temporality, as Fish says) and who did something that led to his current condition (causality, as Fish says). The diegetic base of the story is given first, then the flashback portion is explained through the noun phrase with its dependent clause about the Hungarian (precedence, as Fish says). See how that works?


 * So now you have been introduced to the past perfect continuous, the complete sentence, the noun phrase and the noun clause. Tomorrow: hypotaxis. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your memory seems to be selective about facts and accuracy. Remember: "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put." The conventional rules are not always a solution when it comes to composition. If this upsets up you that is something with which you must come to terms.WordWrightUSA (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Accusations
"are you trying to conceal the fact that the British betrayed him? please keep your nationalistic feelings out of the plot summary"

Ring? I thought by the absence of changes to the article that we would have to do without the continued presence of disruption that may have been prompted by the embarrassment of championing a run on sentence but I see you are continuing.

Mastery seems to be a perception that you hold high your craft of composition but evidently that mastery doers not include the means by which your characterizations are expressed for nullification. Please attempt by all means possible the absence of what can only truly and accurately be attributed your own attitude towards things that make it an avenue by which you to exhibit. At least that way, proposals can be examined objectively instead of personally as has seemed to be your product. I realize in the short association that this seems to be very difficult but if in fact it is the opinion that you act as a barrier to barbarians then so can the of your substandard skills.

I truly believe that there is an absence of anyone consciously or subconsciously attempting to incite, defame or irritate others as long as you have as few needs to comment. Understandably, I encourage every effort by which to accomplish, at least the decrease, if not the elimination, of your inherently ignored but burdened deprecating expressions.WordWrightUSA (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

SELF EDIT: "inherently ignored but burdened deprecating expressions of characterization.WordWrightUSA (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The English Patient; a burn victim; a critically burned man; the English patient's; the patient
From what I recall, so many the same to be expressed in so many other ways in order for desired end product, or so that is what the teacher said.

Otherwise, in that story about "the little red school bus" would always be mentioned as "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus"; "the little red school bus."

And we have a master working on this article?21:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimeyCinema1960 (talk • contribs)

"Master", who wrote: "look if you can't identify a complete sentence, you're not competent to edit the complex sentences of the rest of us" ? "Rest is an activity; not a group. Is that representative of a master? You have many "wax in; wax off" exercises yet, my grasshopper.SharpQuillPen (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Style is not a rule therefore, as in Wikipedia's obligation, and policies and procedures, not to which it is obligated.SharpQuillPen (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Dude is going a little bonkers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

All I hear from you is, wow wow wow wow wow. Give it up.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

naming the planes
It's really only necessary to name the Tiger Moth because it reappears in the story at a critical moment. They don't have to be named every time, in any event. Once it is established, then it's fine to simply say "his place" or "their plane". That's good English. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

betrayal by the British
The British betray Almasy -- at least, that's what he says. Both ideas need to come across clearly. It might take an extra three words to make it clear. Oh, well. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

he lures her aboard
Yes, Geoffrey lures Katherine aboard -- it's in the movie. A significant plot pout so don't leave it out. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"purported"
Why does this word keep coming back in? Yes, there is some confusion about whose plane it is, but that says nothing, so maybe just leave it out altogether. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

detainment
"Under questioning, he loses his temper, is detained and transported in chains on a train north to Benghazi."

I didn't write this sentence originally, but it's a simple statement of the action. If you can't improve the article, don't change it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

final paragraph
The bit about the fatal dose of morphine is about right as it is. The bit about Kip still needs some work. I took another try, including the action instead of a vague summary. The connection Hana makes is critical, obviously. When in doubt, the plot summary should give the action onscreen, so perhaps it doesn't work to try to engage in reading her mind. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

genre
"North African/Italian Campaigns of World War II romantic-drama-themed film adaptation" is not a genre. The text says it's an adaptation, so that's redundant. The setting is mentioned in the brief plot logline, where it more properly belongs. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

the wrong name
Editing this page has unfortunately descended to a pretty low level. Some good efforts have been lost as a result, which is unfortunate. As a group, we are not focusing on how to improve the article sufficiently, so I'm going to mention an issue that I think deserves some careful attention.

An important theme in the movie is the matter of the English patient's name. He has no name, he is accused of having a dangerous name, he is arrested for having a suspicious name, he eventually feels that he lost the love of his life because he had the wrong name. This evolution of audience knowledge of the importance of the name of the unnamed burn victim is one that I think we can bring out to the benefit of the plot summary. I hope you will join me in this. It will take some care on everyone's part to avoid marring the plot summary but still elucidate these small but telling shifts in the story; I think it would elevate its value. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You beg the issue. If this is your purported sincerity the why the following:

"There is a rule against reverting excessively. You have reverted me at least three times today, so if you do it again I'll lodge a formal complaint. See WP:3RR if you have questions.--Ring Cinema (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Although you have every right to lodge a concern about changes to your reverting, the record will show that what you often revert has standing in the plot and that there is absolute fact to be shown in the script. So, go ahead and do so and I will respond in the appropriate manner. I do not take well to your actions of threats and smug expressions that seem to reflect more on the person to which the changes are made than the expression to be reviewed. I totally understand that Wikipedia does not respond to how someone acts in this article review process but I serious doubt that Wikipedia finds it advantageous for someone with such a high degree for their own abilities to not put forth suggestion that can be without personal attack. I realize with the short period in which I have become aware of you that this is not within your mental agility to understand. But be that has it may, I am willing to put up with it in order to at least sustain the merits and intent of Wikipedia's community of contributors. And will as well lodge a complain about your behavior. As you so aptly and often characterized, true and accurate.SharpQuillPen (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Is English your second language? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I find your remark both insensitive, inappropriate and beyond the politeness by which the Wiki community functions. If you wish to continue in this manner I will report this line of expression to have some of sanction leveed which I believe can include, as I have seen with other actions, formal notification of possible further administrative action. I love it when you yourself prove to be your own worst enemy and my proponent.SharpQuillPen (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)"SharpQuillPen (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you were twarted in your threat at an attempt at "official sanction" and instead have attempted a last ditch effort to come across as conciliatory yet with your continued attacks on people are made out to be insincere. Remind me, but are you not the champion of the "gasoline" vesus "airplane fuel" speculation based reasoning that despite repeated notices of the proper word rather than your speculative word insisted that there was no evidence of such in the film basing it on the script that turned out to be a draft evidently early in the production process, that did not reflect the language if the film in those portions that it contained as compared to the final released version and most importantly would have shown with a cursery look at the end that the film according to that script stoped with Katherine in the cave. Wrong move in verifying your source to supoport your speculation. This in addition to your own admission that at least for the scene that contained that dialogue in the film you could not recall and, although a speculation, would bring me to the conclusion that you very well may either have never seen the movie or have such a distorted rememberance of it that you are not one with which I am comfortable relying upon for any language in what may be the article plot version to be submitted for review suitability of wiki standards.

I would disagree with the intent of this new section about the discussion coming to a low point but that in what i have seen in the reversions by you that the points raised by the original post are valid. There is much to be substantiated by the use of the film transcript that has perviously been let be without any reason to think differently. That very well seems to be your nemisis. Who in the world would hav thought it necesary to consult a film dialogue transcript to support their speculation just to be refuted by that assertion.

Your assertion of those "three words" have already been deemed a run on sentence and yet again you persist in what, language that has been well established and what seems acceptable to all, with the "three word" issue, except for yourself. Sad but true.

I am glad that it has been brough forth your language questioning someone about their language. I hope you are not involved in the educatuional process in any country since it seems you have a deep prejudice toward those that do not meet your expectation. That is an attiude to be absolutely absent from the educational process.

All I read when you respond is is "I" "MY" etc and total discount of what others suggest That the "we" and "everyone" expressed in the prompting of this section is the royal we which in reality is I, or more specially characterized as "you." You have long established that.

Editing this page has with all your activities been solely reserved for the plot whereas others have contribued new portions, have improved already existing portions and have conbtributed what seems to be all the recent links. It would appear as such it is your intention to dominate the development of the plot. The record will show this.

Your purported purpose of this section very well would have been best suited to an already existing section to which you seemed to attempt to discount by saying that person had to prove their points when in fact the whole purpose of this talk page is not to create new sections in order to avoid previously establshed section but to work through which already seems to be at odds with you because you lodged a dsipute over an expression which already the preliminary suggestion by the referee discounts your original expression as a run on sentence. And as if that were not enough in the spirit of the wiki community you insist that the sequence by which you expressed it had to be maintained. The ideas are there. What is so important about your expression being the only acceptable language? Sounds like a power play. Speculation but true and accurate. In fact I think you will long for the day that you never said those few but significant words--true and accurate. What is the dialogue from Gosford Park? "That which you despise lives forever."LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are assuming some kind of weird bad faith on my part. So, your bad. Time to abandon the personal attacks, Limey. I understand that you don't like it that you praised a fragment as if it was good -- that was an example of an ad hominem attack. It's unfortunate that you don't know how to use the past perfect continuous. I will handle that. So I'm trying to improve the article and I'd suggest you try to do the same. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

another subject
Had a peek at the 3 revert dispute page and came across a very interesting caution to those that might think about lodging them: "When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first."

No wonder why Ring was scared off by the response to the threat and established a new section instead include it in a the section set up for discussion of this very topic. Just to see where one goes when clicking the various buttons on the pages, looked into Ring's activities and then clicked on a previous 3 revert complaint and came upon the form. That way you can get an over view of the person's activities especially the edit summary comments and how they are addressed. I look forward to the successful interaction of the Shebang section and hope that the others taken part so that at least a few people that are reviewing the development of this page can see that there is consensus. Ring's concentration on plot contain alone seems to be the only interaction there seems to be with the articles and not contributing any other work such as citations or original research. I guess it would not be so underappreciated if the manner in which behavior were different. No one likes to be deprecated and any challenge to Ring's activities is viewed as a personal affront. I have grown up with one too many people of that personality and can recognize it so easily.A1Houseboy (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Abandon personal attacks? Are you kidding us? A review of YOUR edit summaries show incessant almost joyful glee in finding things on which to comment and then give insulting and belittling unwarranted and definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia comments. So PLEASE, you have used up your supply of sincerity. You continually revert or change the contributions of others when for the longest time they have stood and have had plenty of time by you to have reviewed and at least approached the group through the TALK page to establish some dialogue as has been done by others in an attempt to get a plot to that standard by which follows the policies and intent of Wikipedia. And what in that effort in order to appease YOU, you continually changed fact to speculation such as with the gasoline issue and then in a prophetic attempt to stir Wikipedia in the wrong direction claimed that the SOURCE you used did not mention GASOLINE. Then others found that YOUR source was not reflective of the film dialogue. If you had seen the film you could have recognized that there were tremendous amounts of dialogue absent. If you were familiar with the film production process you would have known that what you so faithfully rested your assertion was incomplete (next time look at the end of the source) -- a story line script from which in the conventional production process are produced art boards. These are used to determine problems in the script and what needs to be filmed through visualized prior to any production scheduling. Filming costs money. It is a waste of money if you cannot film all that portion of the film in the same time session instead of having to go back with the crew and the set re-established in order to get done that which could have been determined before hand.

Another case about your "master" skills. CHECK YOUR SOURCES. Did you ever check if what was purported as true based on the film that appeared in the plot against the film dialogue transcript? Well, it seems not if you did not flag Afrika Corps because it is not in there. Not only that but so was absent "north to Benghazi. So was that the Clifton's financed the expedition. So was that Peter secreted the plane. So was that the count was a MINOR Hungarian count. I suspect that these either were left overs from the originally proposed article text when it was posted to Wikipedia, when it seems that there was no delineation established between the book and the film and where information within each format be located. It seems that you are unable to recognize your very disruptive, vengeful attitude in this activity. But do a Michael Jackson and go look in the mirror. PLEASE. Oh, and another 3 revert threat? Remember that as part of the process, your own activity will be reviewed.WordWrightUSA (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)