Talk:The English Patient (film)/Archive 2

Gasoline ?
Am I mistaken in recalling that the fuel that Almasy traded in the movie was identified by Almasy in his finally "confession" as "gasoline", not any other special fuel such as airplane fuel? Please advise if this idea of airplane fuel is from the novel?05:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpQuillPen (talk • contribs)


 * Since the fuel was used for an airplane, I think it is beyond dispute that it is airplane fuel. If it is some other kind of fuel may or may not be true. As you mentioned in your edit summary, it was not ordinary gasoline. Either way, it's airplane fuel. I believe it's the least controversial choice. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly said by Almasy in his own words that t=he traded for gasoline! So if you wish to change the facts then do it other than with Wikipedia. It is suppose to be a true and accurate source.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, RING CINEMA, I must have missed something in my edit summary but I SERIOUS DOUBT that I said it was not ordinary gasoline but that Almasy said from his very mouth, in his own words, under his own volition that he traded the maps for G_A_S_O_L_I_N_E and that I supplied additional non-film information that the fuel used for that type of plane was basically the same as gasoline. I NEVER said that it was NOT gasoline. I reiterate, that Almasy said from his very mouth, in his own words, under his own volition that he traded the maps for G_A_S_O_L_I_N_E So, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NEVER NEVER NEVER feel that you are welcomed to speak on my behalf because you have a habit of mixing things up. I cannot appreciate being misattributed or misrepresented, especially by someone who has already established that they do not know for a fact. If you want to twist words, twist your own because all that can come from efforts such as this is upsetting people.

Furthermore, if your basis of establishing the what was used to fuel it is on your statement of: "Since the fuel was used for an airplane, I think it is beyond dispute that it is airplane fuel. If it is some other kind of fuel may or may not be true." Well, it has been time and time again asserted that Almasy traded for gasoline and yet you come out with an assumption based on total speculation because it seems that you either have not seen the movie or do not remember this portion of the movie and if that is so you should not putting forth assertions as fact when in fact you are not certain. That is called speculation and assumption, terms of which if we were to review your history of proposals, changers and reversions would certainly show exactly that those two terms have been used to discount the work of others. So, please, leave speculation out of WP article development. Do not assert as fact that which you do not know.

So, if all rest on: "Either way, it's airplane fuel. I believe it's the least controversial choice." The least controversial choice is not the purpose of WP. And, let me remind you that this is a community activity. That what is in a draft article is just that draft. So, when you come out with the statement: "Either way, it's airplane fuel." is absolute spit flying into the fan because if that is meant to be that since it was at some time names in the plot as airplane fuel so it will remain then, I must have sometime between when I mention it earlier here that I thought WP was a community efforts; not one person being overbearing on others. If that statement was meant to be that since the fuel was for an airplane it must be airplane fuel. That is speculation on your part since you do not seem to be certain of the fact and should refrain from suggesting speculation. You have already established that you do not know so as respect for those who do know please hold the speculation.

And why can I be so certain about my expressions? Because earlier this evening I was talking with a friend about wanting to get a copy of the film; and guess who had it. Did I hear someone say movie night! Popcorn, soda pop, ice cream and the remote control. That seems a little more certain than the speculation expressed in your message. So, do we have to look forward to changing again, and again, and again every time you decide that it should be airplane fuel? Or do we have to wait for someone to ask for a dispute arbitration? I will leave that to you.

Let me make this clearly understood by reiterating, I SERIOUS DOUBT that I said it was not ordinary gasoline but that Almasy said from his very mouth, in his own words, under his own volition that he traded the maps for G_A_S_O_L_I_N_E and that I supplied additional non-film information that the fuel used for that type of plane was basically the same as gasoline. I NEVER said that it was NOT gasoline. I reiterate, that Almasy said from his very mouth, in his own words, under his own volition that he traded the maps for G_A_S_O_L_I_N_E All true; all accurate.SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You said it was "basically gasoline" in your edit summary. To me, that means it was different from gasoline even though almost the same. My point, which I still think is a good one, is that it was used as airplane fuel so it must have been airplane fuel. If it wasn't airplane fuel, the plane wouldn't fly. It would even be correct to call it fuel. Of course I agree that if someone identifies it as gasoline or petrol in the movie, that's good enough. Since we seem to lack that kind of confirmation, I think we should be as accurate as possible and avoid speculation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I checked the screenplay online and no one utters the word 'gasoline' or 'petrol'. What exactly is the evidence on this? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please provide the site visited so that we can see if in fact it is a final script farther than a script at the start of a production but not necessarily what is used when there are changes during production. Thank you.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have looked at http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/englishpatient.html that is an early script that does not reflect the full language in the film. That is the problem when you cannot see the color of the page to tell you if it is the original drsft, subsequent changes and then the way in which the language actually is in the film.

You should check the following: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/e/english-patient-script-transcript-fiennes.html

A summary of the appropriate pages follow. You can verify by going directly to the site. I am certain that you will forgive the lack of character names.

The English Patient Script - Dialogue Transcript Voila! Finally, the The English Patient script is here for all you quotes spouting fans of the Ralph Fiennes, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Juliette Binoche movie. This script is a transcript that was painstakingly transcribed using the screenplay and/or viewings of The English Patient. I know, I know, I still need to get the cast names in there and I'll be eternally tweaking it, so if you have any corrections, feel free to drop me a line. You won't hurt my feelings. Honest.

Swing on back to Drew's Script-O-Rama afterwards for more free movie scripts!

The English Patient Script

- How are you?

- Okay.

Your leg will be fine.

A lot of shrapnel came out. l saved

you the pieces. . . . . . . So yes

she died because of me.

Because l loved her.

Because l...

Because l had the wrong name.

- And you never got back to the cave?

- l did get back.

l kept my promise.

l wss sssisted by the Germans.

There wss a... a trade.

l had our expedition maps.

And after the British made me their enemy

l gave their enemy our maps.

So l got back to the desert...

and to Katharine...

in Madox's English plane...

with German gssoline.

When l arrived in ltaly

on my medical chart they wrote

English Patient.

lsn't that funny?

After all that

l became English.

You get to the morning and the poison

leaks away, doesn't it?

Black nights.

- l thought l would kill you.

- You can't kill me.

l died years ago.

- l thought l would kill you.

- You can't kill me.

l died years ago.

No, l can't kill you now.

We've been posted. North of Florence. . . . . . . . . Hana?

Hana, come on!

Hana

this is Gioia.

- Buon giorno.

- Buon giorno.

She'll take you ss far ss Florence.

l can get in back.

Special help by SergeiK

So now that we have direct facts I will be changing the way in which Kip is POSTED to Florence.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite the British theme of the film, always new that the word petrol was never used, And I would not want to speculate but maybe because Saentz is American and thus was so many of his production team. Persistence is a wonderful thing but in the champion of that which is not factual is not so much appreciated.SharpQuillPen (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for confirming that. You notice the typo. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Typo? Do you mean posted? That is not a typo; that is a different word applied. If so, I knew long ago that it was not transferred or, I believe that the word used was went or sent. It's just that I decided not to get into a match with you because it seems, such as in this situation, that if it is something that you initiate then it is done unilaterally without question but if others do it, they seem to have to come up with some type of physical secondary source information. I don't know how others with developing Wiki articles feel about the way in which you assume a role of supremacy over "contributing" to the article but it is just plain disruptive and disrespectful, regardless as to what it concerns.

I would even venture to say that if there was a review of the edits history of the article that it would show that if it was not initiated by you that there would be more indications that any changes or reversion were done by you than otherwise. That is not a community of contributors. That is being you a guard at the gate.

What particularly upsets and concerns me with this issue is that you said you did not know yet insisted on as speculative conclusion which was acceptable to you and if we looked at the edit history I seriously doubt that the change from gasoline was done by you, alone, unless we go further into the history before the latest article review. I do not appreciate your attitude and of course you believe there is none but when you change again things time after time even after having been advised that the change is incorrect well. That smacks of a problem. And I do not mean myself or others that have had to battle with you about contributing to this article. Yes, battling. That does not give me a feeling of being a contributor. That is fact and that is accurate. It seems that you have never in a case where your were uncertain willing to say, I am uncertain so how it is at present is okay until we learn otherwise. Not one time have you seem to do this. Others have.

As you can see I did not really get involved with the DASHING issue and just wanted to see how things worked out and now, we have a consensus without the those three words. What does that tell you? Everything idea that was in the originally proposed sentence has been included in the current language except those three words. And I guess there was a dispute lodged. And those three words are no where to be seen. The idea did not belong at the end and they made the sentence sound awkward. So I hope that these issues are gone but I am not holding my breath that there will not be any others.SharpQuillPen (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

TLDR. The typo is in your text, where gasoline is misspelled. So, short answer to Did you notice the typo? is "no". --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, that sentence should have started with "did" and finished with a "?" to avoid the confusion otherwise how is one to know what is being posed or asked.WordWrightUSA (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"gassline" ? Is it crucial in the development of this article that a preliminary draft of an independent and probably on their own effort produced dialogue transcript of the released film have have a typo identified? Talk about inconsequential and maybe a pathological obsession with asserting some sense of perceived authority working on behalf of the group based on what that person accepts as either correct or incorrect. This comes from me because i am attempting to understand the dynamics and reiterate in my mind every time that some "decision" comes down from Almighty. What an environment.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Shebang
The matter at hand seems to be getting, once again, tedious. So in that regard, let us have a section to consider the points in order that there be less "picking at the carcass" and attempting to save the body.

At present:

" The English Patient (1996) is a North African/Italian Campaigns of World War II romantic-drama-themed 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 burn victim in World War II Italy. Once a dashing archaeologist, his sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end.

Plot In the final days of the Italian Campaign of World War II, Hana, a French-Canadian nurse in a bombed Italian monastery looks after a critically burned man who speaks English but is defiant about revealing his identity.

David Caravaggio, a former thief that is now a intelligence operative, arrives at the monastery with bandaged hands and an acute interest in the morphine supply and the English patient's past.

Hana starts a romance with Kip, a Sikh sapper in the British Army defusing bombs, despite the "curse" she believes she casts on those close to her.

In the late 1930s, the cartographer Count László de Almásy maps Saharan Egypt and Libya. A minor Hungarian noble and co-leader of a Royal Geographical Society archeological and surveying expedition in Egypt and Libya, the Count and his English partner, Peter Madox, are academics at heart, with little knowledge of the brewing war. The British couple, Geoffrey and Katherine Clifton, fly to the camp with their purported, privately-owned Boeing-Stearman. He is frequently away mapping. The infidelity of Katherine and Almásy founders on her guilt and his jealousy.

In the months before the war, the Count studies an ancient Saharan site, the Cave of Swimmers. A government order stops work at the camp and Peter leaves his Tiger Moth at Kufra ossis before he and the Count go their separate ways.

Caravaggio lost his thumbs to interrogation, by a German Army officer in Tobruk, and he seeks to avenge the transgression. He accuses the patient of betrayal. The patient explains the British betrayed him.

When Geoffrey discovers the affair, he pilots the Boeing-Stearman, into a crash at the camp: Geoffrey is killed instantly, Katherine is seriously injured, and Almásy narrowly hit. He leaves her in the Cave with provisions, then begins a three-day walk for help. Dazed and dehydrated, he gets to British-held El Tag. During official questioning about the spelling of his name, he becomes agitated, is detained and in chains transported on a train north to Benghazi. He escapes behind Afrika Korps lines and trades the British maps to the Germans for gasoline. He flies the Tiger Moth to the Cave, but is too late.

He attempts to return Katherine's body but a German anti-aircraft battery shoots them down. Her body is not recovered in the crash; he is horribly burned and rescued by Bedouin.

Carvaggio is ready to forgive. Hana finds renewal with Kip averting death on the war's last day; her hope in love is rekindled. Hana cannot refuse Almásy's indication for a fatal dose of morphine. She leaves for north of Florence, where Kip was posted.''' "

By all means, explain what justifies the proposed suggestion. As far as I understand, Wikipedia is a community of contributors and that proposals put forth are not obligations on the part of Wikipedia. So, please refrain from characterizing your perception of the suggestions of others; including how they are expressed. If you have a problem with how something is expressed then propose how that should be expressed rather than attack people. That is the spirit of Wikipedia.


 * Go ahead, explain why your draft is better. I already gave good reasons in my edit summaries. Plus, I didn't praise a sentence fragment as excellent writing. I know how to use the past perfect continuous. I don't use 'that' for 'who'. Some editors here may not be native speakers but I am and my good style is intact. As a further example, you are still saying that a complex sentence is a run on; okay, another basic grammatical point that you have completely wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your permission. Is your point, the information or the expression? If it is the expression then keep it to that and correct it without reference to peoples credibility. Instead, it seems to be more enjoyment from finding fault with people than agreeing as to the inclusion of appropriate word choice.SharpQuillPen (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not at all surprise by Ring's response since earlier I attempted the same with a response that may have brought my contributions to plot to an end but have continued to view what others have taken on. I encourage it so that there is an open record to all in one source about the changes that happen along the way. As it seems by the latest changes by Ring, what already appeared by what I would assume was Ring's own anointing of such has again changed. I agree that an article is always under improvement but sadly it seems to be a one way road with the plot.A1Houseboy (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, actually, Houseboy, you stopped editing because your edits were inferior grammatically. I am starting to think you and SharpQuillPen are sock puppets, since it's unusual to have an editor here who doesn't handle English like a native. I have my eye on that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this section because after what just happened to the article I cannot believe it. Absolute terrorism. That is why I am putting this here. Question in point: the originally suggested text and the most recent terroristic edit.

Ring, you are paroind. You also accused others in your three word issue fiasco as sock puppets. Is that your tactic? And as concerns what A1 did I believe it is to the person's own explanation as to why. Your assertion is only time ill spent on "speculation."

"Ondaatje worked closely with the filmmakers." A citation will be found in the appropriate section of the article later one but just for you we can move it up. I am surprised you did not see this when you edited the section and thus all that needed to be done was "cut and paste"WordWrightUSA (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been asserted elsewhere that there in the portion of the article other than the ploit ti which there are redundant statement. Obviously, if there were not so many drastics changes made to the plot then we would know where else appropriate infoirmastion can be located. But when the person who lodges that concern has such a signifcant role in it then someone is crying wolf. That person will not even grace the despute resolution process with a reply although the issue was put forth by that contributor, reviewed with a less than optimistic result for that person and now will not accept the proposal that was suggested by the referee.19:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

sentence fragment corrected
Again, the sentence fragment reappeared in the lede. I would urge those of you who have not mastered the grammar of the complete sentence to refrain from editing complex sentences. Seriously, you shouldn't try difficult editing if you can't recognize a complete sentence. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"lede" and you a master? Oh, I know the explanation; it's a short cut.........18:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordWrightUSA (talk • contribs)


 * Fascinating. You don't know the word 'lede' and didn't bother to check. So let's add it to the list: you can't recognize a sentence fragment, don't know how to use the past perfect continuous, and don't know the word 'lede'. Sorry about your lack of knowledge on these topics. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"scorching three day walk"
Why is someone trying to disguise the fact that it was a brutal physical task to walk three days through the hot desert? That's in the movie and the plot summary should say what's in the movie. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This description has been included in the article for more than three years. Only one editor of the many who have contributed here seems to take exception to it. I think it must be accurate unless something emerges to indicate that it is incorrect. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's been the status quo since 2010. Is there some reason to believe every other editor was wrong? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Book Content Transfer To The Movie Plot Description
With yet another revert to an earlier version of the plot. There are several inaccurate representations, speculations and, probably, book information transfers that need to be addressed. This is in order for the plot to represent the FILM correctly. The problem at hand is that reviews of the movie have not been so protective of the content of plot summaries and leaving details of the book to the book contents and that of the film to the film.

1. secretes his Tiger Moth //Absolutely no script mention of secreting: "I will leave....". Maybe another popularly accepted fallacious transfer from the book?

2. black marketer //Absolutely no script mention of being black-marketer; probably another popularly accepted fallacious transfer from the book.

3. scorching  //scorching is POV since absolutely no script mention of temperature except at the Embassy Christmas party. The Cave is in "A mountain the shape of a woman's back." At no time when they are at camp is the temperature represented as being oppressive and in fact at night they had a camp fire. Wadi Sura is in the mountainous Gilf Kebir plateau; Yes he would arrive at El Tag dehydrated being in an arid area. That is not scorching; that is being over-heated or potentially suffering from heat stroke. That is how it is represented in the movie; not scorching, which is an appropriate word to describe environmental conditions. The film does not establish the time of year. To do so is speculation (POV), a habit that is discouraged in Wikipedia since it is POV. If it is the condition of his body then the appropriate word would be over-heated.

4. explain his non-British name  //no script mention of even an attempt to explain name and in fact when the officers tell him they will call the Headquarters he insists that they do not.

5. Afrika Korps  //no script mention of Afrika Korps in film. It is impossible with out speculating and imposing a POV just which group of German military it is to which he trades for the gasoline since a topic of the TALK page was the credibility of the uniforms worn by the Germans and the form of address in the film. To say AK is speculation, maybe another popularly accepted fallacious transfer from the book.

6. a brush with death  //A cliché; should not be encouraged in good writing; he averts death when in the deep pit he defuses a bomb just moments before tanks trembling the ground approach the bridge adjacent to the bomb. He drops his tool into the muddy water at his feet and has to retrieve it by feeling for it by touch. The only justification of non-encyclopedic inclusion of that cliché could be if it was a quote. It is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpQuillPen (talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. Please check a dictionary on the meaning of 'secrete'. He conceals the plane from view.


 * 2. My memory was he fenced his stolen goods but I might be mistaken.


 * 3. I agree we shouldn't speculate. There are many shots that represent the desert as very hot. He sleeps in a small shadow of a rock to avoid the sun, right? He covers his head as protection from the sun. He arrives at El Taj suffering from the heat. To me it is more accurate to say it than to leave it out.


 * 4. No, he says himself that it is because of his name. "I had the wrong name."


 * 5. I have no knowledge of this one.


 * 6. Yes, it is not ideal and I agree that if there is a pithy way to give the complete action we should use it, but this seems like the best way I have seen to summarize it so that the readers get the idea that she had a reason for her change of heart. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

CONTINUED SETTING THE RECORD RIGHT

1. He says so as indicated by the included dialogue: "leave it."


 * Pictures are in the film, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

2.Unfortunately, recall can be deceiving and if a search had been made of the dialogue transcript recommended to you because the original source you based your speculation of airplane fuel over gasoline was on a storyboard version of the script (absence of dialogue from the film) that ended with Katherine being left in the cave. That is basic due diligence.


 * I was correct on it since I said it was airplane fuel, and it must have been since it was used to fuel an airplane. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

3. You speak of scenes of which none give us an understanding of the conditions at the time of his walk. All we see is that he is in the cave then in El Tag, overheated. Scorching is a word for the description of environmental conditions. The film cannot be used as a reference to what time of year that THE El Tag arrivAL takes place because it is not linear. To do so is speculation and should not be, according to edit summaries that you have produced, be used. Also, if you could review internet information about temperature in the area then you would be aware that El Tag has temperature scheme similar to that of Palm Springs, California. There are times of the year in which during the day it is very middle range temperatures instead of extremes. So, again to use other scenes to speculate is an incorrect and unsuitable means of characterizing that part of the film. In fact the only time that heat is shown to be a problem for a person is the Christmas scene at the embassy where the participants are in the open air. Again, speculation should be absent from Wiki's content; that is a POV which is particularly unsuitable to an encyclopedia. In fact your speculation about the condition of the area is totally unnecessary in that sentence with the following expression because even in the cave he does not mention any problem with the heat on his forthcoming journey. He says that he will go to El Tag and that it will take three days and three hours to return. This wording was suggested and you claimed that it was article vandalism. Again, another example of if you express it, it is acceptable; and if others, then it has to be absolute fact (and acceptable to you) Then, you have the audacity to include as if it was your contribution, then if it gets changed you claim that it was a reverting of your text. You cannot have it both ways:

Help is three days walk to El Tag. He stumbles into the British-held town dazed and dehydrated. Under questioning he is unable to explain his plight. He acts erratic, loses his temper, and is detained until transported in chains on a train north to Benghazi.


 * So my examples still stand as indications it was scorching, apparently. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

4. Those words were not of the scene in which he was detained. A review of that scene's dialogue will show that he never explained anything about his name and in fact when told they would call headquarters, I assume to determine his identity, that he objected, probably with his insistence that Katherine was his wife. So to characterize that he was attempting to explain his name is his conclusion to his earlier experience, not what was said in the scene. To apply his conclusion to the original scene in the film is a wrong characterization. If you want to make a go of that he had the wrong name that is another issue that is associated with what was his experience but was not in that scene in the film. It could be speculated that his actions started to concern the officers before they could get to that question. But again, that is speculation and that is what is to be avoided.


 * You are mistaken. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

5. A review of the dialogue transcript, which seem to be the only way for you to accept that it was gasoline traded to the Germans and not your speculated airplane fuel, that will establish that the name never appears in the dialogue as exhibited by the immediate previous paragraph that was reverted en masse per your instructions so you should have remembered as such otherwise there should never have been your revert of the entire plot; both times within the last few days. If you claim vandalism, that is your POV and is not held as a valid excuse for the changing of improperly derived characterizations for facts.


 * I was correct: it was airplane fuel and gasoline. Perhaps you are aware that films have dialogue and they have pictures. Both are in the movie. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

6. It is a cliché and according to your own comments on the contributions of others about "good English" should clearly as any high school composition teacher point out that the use of cliché's is lazy expression. If the manner and conditions under which Kip defuses the bomb is not averting death then I feel your characterization in the plot could be iffy. It is the intention of Wiki to be expressed in English/American that is well-written. Cliche's are not good use of language. Quoting cliché's in film dialogue would be more than appropriate but that is not the case just as other instances of quoted information in the plot was found after review of the dialogue transcript not to have been part of the film. SharpQuillPen (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You're not contributing anything here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

CONTINUED 3. A review of the dialogue transcript does not support the POV that he was a "professional"; only a thief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpQuillPen (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Washington Post film review says he's a professional thief, among other sources. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

3. If we were to include in Wiki articles, especially film plots, that characterization that is not supported by a film content then we would be having a far different version of content that clearly would be including POV. A review, even by a reputable publication, is not fact from the film; it is their speculation being carried over into this article as had so much other information from the book used in previous article content to explain the film. Again, that is POV which you should be aware. It is not fact that Caravaggio is in the film called a professional thief; only an ex-thief. So, to say that he his professional just contributes to the fallacy that people think that POV is proper for an encyclopedia. If you want to make a go of how different characters were described in publications other than the film then by all means create a new section about that. But that is not part of the film.SharpQuillPen (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me reiterate that I mention many shots that indicate the atmospheric conditions. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to be interested in something other than getting things right. Very unappealing and very poor form. As you know, I am open to good ideas and want to get things right. If you have something to say about that, by all means share it. Your personal attacks indicate that you aren't trying to improve the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't go that way with me especially after your behavior that clearly indicates that you have a problem with things. Who in the world would ever think that it was necessary on talk page to change the would gets to get when the whole spirit of the page is just to get ideas across, not necessary how it is expressed. In fact, to say that by what you characterize as personal attacks clearly can be seen in your comments just following "unappealing and very poor form." Who in hell appoint you master of the world?

Again, you are for the support of your insistence of the inclusion of the word scorching using your POV to impose upon other scenes when the fact remains that even in the cave scene there is no reference to the any heat. There is no mention of any heat at the time that he takes her out of the crashed plane and there is not any indication when he reach El Tag about any heat. We know that a three day walk will be arduous but it is not left to us to speculate what was his experience when the environmental conditions were not portrayed in that part of the movie. It can even be speculated that the Murch if he wanted to set the tone of the walk could have included a scene of the desert. HE DID NOT. You do not realize the just how you come across in chastising people. You should lean how to follow the advice that is included in the explanation of Wiki's purpose in its own pages. I am always attempting to understand just why is it that you are so belligerent and negative. You yourself was not willing to accept "gasoline" as what was traded unless there was absolute proof. And in that effort, you got caught up in your own devious ways by coming back with a source upon which you declared the validity of your assertion that was not GOOD. And prepared to use SPECULATION as the basis of your insistence of "airplane fuel." So, you are gong to have to learn a new tactic besides having people blocked and text reverted to versions that are minus all the other work that had gone into an article because I am tired of your continual declarations that others are not as good as you. Give us a break.SharpQuillPen (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"getting things right

Are you joking? A review of your "contributions" to Wiki are so lopsided toward editing than any contribution of new research. So give me a break about your claim about what others want to do.  "getting things right"  With that change of a messily "gets" to "get" is beyond any conceivable sense of what is your intentions.  "getting things right" . Yah, right!SharpQuillPen (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, contributions outside of what already appears in the articles. Just how many instances of such have you done? VERY LITTLE.

7. When did the monastery become a pharmacy since it is not the monastery's supply of morphine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpQuillPen (talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

CONTINUED--

8."In the months before the war, the Count studies an ancient Saharan site, the Cave of Swimmers, until a British order stops work in the camp at the onset of fighting. Madox secretes his Tiger Moth at Kufra oasis before the two go their separate ways."

The only reference needed about the war is in describing the stop order of expeditions since if he is stopped by that order and it comes before the war, then it must follow that he was studying before the war and the order. So, when the Count started to study is not necessary to be pointed out to the reader since the stop order would indicate that his work stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpQuillPen (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

3. SCORTHING HEAT--

As much as it may seem characteristic of a desert there is no scene indication or dialogue to indicate that his 3 day walk was through a hot desert. Dry, yes; hot, no. In fact at camp they had fires to keep warm and Katherine had a fire in the cave. Yes, there were scenes depicting a hot desert but the film does not indicate when that travel took place. To characterize it as hot is to speculate that based on other scenes in the film that when he took the walk it was hot is speculation. As has been indicated earlier here an internet review of temps for that area will show the sequence similar to Palm Springs, California which has winter day time temps in the 60s-70s and night time temps in the 40s-50s. To apply characteristic of other scenes to this scene is speculation. He doesn't say it is hot, or that the journey will be difficult because it is hot, he just matter of fact says that it is a 3 day walk. In an arid environment it would be expected for one to show up dehydrated and exhausted which is what he portrayed in that scene. To go beyond that characterization is, again, speculation. We are told that interpretation and speculation should be absent from Wiki articles. If the plot involved speculation and inter[reaction that that would have a role for that part of the film But it does not. As much as anyone would agree that the desert is a hot place, a desert is also arid which makes for an unpleasant experience when you do not have a constant drinking water supply. He did not. That aspect would make the experience uncomfortable not any speculated heat.SharpQuillPen (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

3. Many aspects of this article have been found to be incorrect such as fallacious transfer from the book. Items that formerly were quoted were found after the review of the dialogue transcript to never have been said. And speculation that you have postulated has also been found to incorrect, and championed on your part to include in the although it was mere speculation. Speculation does not belong in this plot unless it is what the characters did. As has been said before the temperature of a desert is not always hot. Certainly, being out in the full sun probably with little wind may cause someone, especially if they are travelling for a distance without a supply of drinking, will suffer. But that does not mean that he suffered die to heat. Just because other scenes of a hot desert were in the film is not sufficient to characterize that it was hot. Otherwise, we probably would have a different plot filled with s[peculation and assumption and interpretation--as well as what was included in the book. This article is FAR different than what it was three months ago. So to recall back to 2010 just indicates that it may have been assumed then, but under the current considerations of what is portrayed in the film rather than what the book tells us, or what we may speculate, or assuume or interpret is out of the question..SharpQuillPen (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your view that some aspects of this article came from the book is your invention; I haven't read the book. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither have I. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 13:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Some things you mention at the edit warring page, SQP
All of your accusations are unfounded or erroneous. I responded to the dispute mediation, although I didn't file it. I don't threaten people. When there are too many reverts I issue a warning, as required. On the Afrika Korps issue, I haven't participated on that because I don't know enough about it, but there is a good chance you are mistaken, since the Akrika Korps were Germans and you seem to think they weren't. So again it seems that longstanding consensus indicates accuracy. I'm not surprised. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my statements. No one is ever "required"; that is a choice you have per the policies of Wiki. As for Afrika/Akrika Korps issue ("On the Afrika Korps issue, I haven't participated on that because I don't know enough about it, but there is a good chance you are mistaken, since the Akrika Korps") you seem to take the view that since it is not reflected in the released film dialogue transcript that I must think that they are not German. Being part German, I take a personal offense to your continued personal attacks and misinterpretations. I never said or claimed that the Afrika Korps was not German; that it was not in the dialogue of the released film. If you wish to interpret this as a denial on my part to recognized that the Afrika Korps were German then you are mistaken. If you wish to characterize others as mistaken, let me remind you about your assertion about the gasoline issue. You insisted that gasoline or petrol was not in the released film therefore you could speculate that it was appropriate to, since the fuel was for a plane, that it was airplane fuel. You based this speculation on a source that was reviewed without due diligence. A simple review of that source would have shown that it was a draft, an early draft, a version that was dated long before production started, lacked tremendous dialogue to be found in the released film version, and ended with Katherine in the cave. It would appear that your knowledge of the film project process is lacking since with a script filled with description of scenes rather than dialogue would most likely be that from which story boards are developed in order for the production to proceed with as little delay, inconvenience and additional costs. So to characterize the German forces presence in northern Africa just because in real life we know that they were there is a speculation since it is not in the dialogue of the released film. To do so is speculation especially since the released film does not reflect the entire production script. If the Afrika Korps was in that script then it can be claimed that the German presence in north Africa was the Afrika Korps if it made it to the released film version. It did not make it into the released film version. And, since it has been raised that the authenticity of the uniforms in the film are in question then the visuals cannot be relied upon. The inclusion of the Afrika Korps in a former version of the plot very well may have been a fallacious transfer from the book which seems to have included that detail.

Oh, the book. I hope your indication of not having read the book intends to convey that others should not. Personally, I have not read the book but have read many reviews that have included what could only be if in the book but not the released film version a fallacious transfer from the book in order to better understand the movie since the book had additional information that never made it to the released film version.

As for "long standing consensus: "minor" Hungarian count -- minor never in the movie; Afrika Korps -- never in the movie; I could go on about "consensus." Consensus is just speculation that sometimes seems to be based on source material other than that being reviewed. They were not in the film and included in the plot. They should not have been and obviously should not continue. So, consensus is only as good as that amount of looking into the reliable sources. As far as I understand, speculation, interpretation and assumption are not to be included in Wiki articles unless that is part of the content of the article.

So, if you wish to characterize that which is said by others then do it correctly instead of being dismissive as if in an effort, possibly to defend your actions, to discredit others. That is not how Wiki is intended. Otherwise, there would be a free-for-all going about.SharpQuillPen (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggested change in wording
Would it not have less ambiguity as the following: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds in World War II Italy through the story of a burn victim, a once dashing archaeologist whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better, and I see that Ring Cinema has made the change you suggested. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing original research
Attn: USER:Ring Cinema. After receiving verification that describing things that an editor happens offscreen is not permitted and constitutes WP:OR, I am making changes once again to this article to refer only to things that happen onscreen. Please do not change it back to reflect your "insights" and "comprehension" of the film. As I have said before, none of what you (nor I) believe about the story, backstory, character motivations, etc., is permitted in a plot summary. And the sentence, "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds in World War II Italy through the story of a burn victim, a once-handsome explorer whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end." may belong on a movie poster, but it is entirely subjective and does not belong on an encyclopedia article. If you begin reverting my edits as you did last time I was here, I will report you for edit-warring. Thank you.--TEHodson 09:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am not inserting original research. I'm just saying what happens in the film. As has been previously noted, you don't really know what happened in the film, since you are apparently unaware that, e.g., the husband knew about the affair and Almasy was jealous. Since this is a content dispute, we should return to the last consensus version until our discussion yields a new consensus. I'm open to that possibility. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We did not "agree" to this edit--I simply gave up because I was much too busy to keep fighting about it with you. In reviewing the recent history of this article, it appears the SharpQuillPen based much of his/her assertions about plot on the script, but the script is not the finished film, so this is improper. I don't have time to discover exactly who wrote what here, but, I am going to take you at your word that you do not recognize any of what you are including as original research, and ask you to describe how the following things are NOT OR:

Actually, we did agree to it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


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


 * 1) "once-handsome" How is the nature of Almasy's handsomeness established in the film itself? Does he describe himself as "handsome"? Do others describe him thus? Is he de facto handsome because Ralph Fiennes plays him? Would you insist that the character was handsome if he was played by a 300 lb. actor, balding, with buck teeth and bad skin? Or would you then want the sentence to read "once-ugly"?

That's strange. So you admit that Ralph Fiennes is handsome but you think the character he's playing isn't? Okay, obviously you're wrong on that one.


 * 2) What events in the film itself can be characterized as "sacrifices"? Can those events be interpreted in other ways?

If you want to take a stab at a more accurate summary, I am not opposed. But apparently you didn't realize a brief summary belongs in the lede. Glad to see you have corrected your thinking. Well done. The current draft was worked on by several editors, so I think it's pretty well accepted. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 3) By "spell his end" I assume the original writer of that sentence (and you, now, presumably) mean "lead to his death." How, exactly, do those events lead to his death, and can those events be interpreted in another way?

No, they can't be interpreted in a different way, since that is what happens in the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 4) "When Geoffrey discovers the affair, he lures Katherine aboard their plane and pilots it into the camp in a crash aimed at Almásy." As there is no scene in which we see Geoffrey and Katherine getting into the plane--we do not see Geoffrey until just before the plane crashes (and he is already in the plane, piloting it), and only see Katherine after it has crashed (and she is already in the plane, in the passenger seat)--how have you concluded that Katherine was "lured" into it? The scene with the crash begins with Almasy packing up the camp by the Cave of Swimmers. Then the plane appears, he runs, it crashes WITHOUT HITTING HIM. As events that an editor believes happened off-screen constitute, by definition, OR, please explain how this is NOT OR.

You are denying the obvious. I respect skepticism about interpreting a film's events, but clearly Geoffrey learns of the affair. His actions, as stated in the plot summary, are to lure Katharine on board (based on her words), and fly it into the camp where Almasy is. That's what happens in the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 5) "Katharine and Almásy have an affair which founders on his jealousy and her guilt." Please cite a scene or scenes from the film itself that states this is the reason for the affair ending, and explain your use of the word "foundering" rather than simply "ended." As I said two weeks ago, I just re-watched the movie from start to finish, and this is not what happens. It is your interpretation of what happens. Katherine ends the relationship abruptly, at the outdoor movie show, saying "I can't do this" over and over. She says to Almasy that she has to stop, and that at some point they might bump into someone who will see them. She says it will "kill" Geoffrey. She does NOT speak at all about her own feelings in this scene. She does not say she feels guilt. And Almasy has not behaved jealously at this point. After the relationship ends he begins to act erratically, makes a scene at the International Sand Club dinner, and accuses her of sleeping with other men (the scene you linked to on YouTube happens well after the affair has ended, and in any case, we don't use YouTube as a reference--the film has to be seen in order if you are trying to refresh your memory for a plot summary). But all this conversation and behavior is AFTER the affair has ended. We are not supposed to speculate about feelings, or to describe what we think people are thinking. We are supposed to merely say what happens. Katherine ends the affair. Period. Either you are remembering events out of order, or you are doing OR.

I am glad to see the form your discourse is taking. This is progress. You are really improving in some respects.

Apparently you forgot what Katharine says when she ends it. You can find a transcription online if you want to review her reasons, which involve her fear of what it would do to her husband if he learned of the affair. Perhaps you forgot.

Some problem with the word 'founder'? I know of none and you state none.

Please explain how you place the jealousy scene in the order of events. This is an important point, so please state your evidence.


 * 6) "despite her worries that she is a "curse" on those close to her." Hana's worries are insignificant to the plot, and in any case, this is what is called a character detail, not a plot detail. Please explain why you think this is important to the plot summary.

Nothing to explain. This happens in the film and the story is better understood knowing this. I don't think that a highly-trained film professional like you would think that character is irrelevant to a story.


 * I will not revert you yet; I will give you time to explain how, as "OR is not the issue" in your view, these things do NOT constitute OR. USER:Lugnuts agrees that this OR and has supported my changes. Thank you.--TEHodson 17:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Lugnuts hasn't contributed here. He has been known to get things wrong, consensus is about collaborating and compromising. Plus, many editors have contributed to this article. You're sort of an outlier, denying things that are in the story. On the other hand, you make some good points and I am certainly in favor of improving the article. Thanks for giving it your consideration. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * On the Film Talk page you wrote that I don't "believe that Hana was going to Florence to be near Kip". Let me explain how this is a perfect example of you having filled in the blanks, which in WP-speak is original research. When Kip leaves the monastery he and Hana talk briefly about the future. They both say they will always remember each other if they visit "that church" (the one Kip showed her the frescoes in). Hana says "Maybe someday we'll meet again there." Kip says, "And maybe we'll never see each other again." When Hana is leaving, days later, she does not mention Kip, nor does Caravaggio. He introduces Hana to the village woman who will drive them and says she will "take you as far as Florence." That's it. There is no plan made, nor discussed; the ending is completely open to interpretation. You have inferred that she is going to meet Kip, but not everyone does. A few days ago on set, as a result of our discussions here, I asked a few people at lunch how they read the ending of this movie. The 3 women there all thought the two would meet again, maybe in Florence, maybe someplace else, but all said that was what happened because they wanted "a happy ending." Two men all thought that Kip would not survive much longer, given his job, and a third said they never meet again (like me, he had read the book and knew that they never do). My point is this: the ending is open-ended, and we can't draw our own conclusions and then state them here as a fact of plot. It is a debatable ending--everyone has his/her own idea. If it happens in the film itself, we can say it happened. If it doesn't happen, and isn't even discussed by the characters as a plan that might happen later, we can't say this is why she's going to Florence. Surely you can see that! And clearly, you have remembered the film's events out-of-order, which is why you are insisting that the affair between K and A ends due to jealousy, when in fact A's whole position during the affair is "No ownership."--TEHodson 19:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what this illustrates is that you are reading something into the summary that isn't there. What is stated is just what happens in the film. But, I guess, you are so intent on concealing that she might have a reason to follow Kip from the reader that you don't even want the reader to make their own inference. Sorry, the original was vastly superior to your crabbed draft that didn't even include the incidents in the film. Now, it's true that everyone who sees the film knows what she's doing and why she hitches a ride north. No need for us to pretend we don't understand what's in the story. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are you going on about what some people imagine happens after the end of the film? Are you unable to discern that the plot summary gives the events that happen in the movie? If not, you should read them again and note how well stated the original was -- quite a bit better than your attempt. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Jesus Fucking Christ, but you are too colossally stupid to be dealt with. Saying over and over "That's what happens in the film" is not answering any of the above questions, nor is it proof that indeed, that IS what happens in the film. Once again, I give up. THIS IS NOT AGREEMENT, by the way, merely exhaustion and disgust. You are wrong on every single count here, you do not know even in what order the film's events happen, do not know what OR is. You are an idiot. I am done.--TEHodson 21:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Poor article
The article stinks, especially the plot section. Someone who knows the movie and actually knows how to write competently should rewrite it. Why does Defoe's character blame the English Patient for the loss of his thumbs? Why does the casting section of the article go off an a tangent about archaeologist stereotypes? Seems out of place to say the least.


 * I agree that this is perhaps the worst film-related article I have ever seen. I removed the ridiculous Archaeology section, but have no desire to re-write the entire article, as I no longer edit on WP beyond the occasional grammatical correction. But it should be re-written, preferably from scratch, and should not include things like referring over and over to the patient as "the Count" (ugh) for many reasons, not least of which is that he's never referred to as such in the film itself. --TEHodson 10:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I rewrote it after all. It's much better. Let's hope it stays that way. The biggest problem with the article was that it often sounded as though it was written by editors who wish they were writing screenplays or something; this is not meant to be a place where you show off your dramatic writing skills (real or imagined). A film plot summary is meant to be very brief and restricted to the most important elements of the plot--that's it, nothing more elaborate. Please see WP:FILMPLOT if you need further guidance.--TEHodson 11:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * To Ring Cinema: You have some fundamentally mistaken ideas about what a film plot should be, as well as mistaken ideas about what constitutes fact vs. original research (please see WP:OR). The guidelines are very clear! Your insistence on including your feelings about what the characters do, feel, are (Caravaggion is "ready for forgiveness"; Hana "puts her fears to rest"' a bomb is "frightening", the patient was "once-dashing") all constitute original research and have no place in a film plot summary. For the most part, adjectives get you into that territory and should be avoided. The plot summary should not contain reproduced dialogue, as this: WP:FILMPLOT states explicitly, so I removed all of what you put back in. It is your opinion that Hana is "catching a ride" to join Kip--that may be implied but it is not stated; there is no scene involving Clifton and Katherine getting into the plane, so I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that she was "lured." This, again, constitutes OR. I do not understand your need to refer to the patient as "the Count" as he is never referred to thus in the film. Please read the guidelines for writing Plot Summaries. --TEHodson 21:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, which I think is really valuable. Some of your points are well taken by me and some aren't so good. I am completely in accord with you that the summary shouldn't interpret; on the other hand, you made some obvious mistakes in terms of point of view that indicate some lack of knowledge about how a plot summary should be written. It seems quite obvious that the bomb is "frightening", so that's kind of your weakest point. Is Caravaggio "ready for forgiveness"? Well, I prefer that somewhat suspect formulation to leaving him out of the ending altogether. Does Hana put her fears to rest? Seems like she does, but if you want to put that in terms of the action of the film I am certainly in agreement with you. Neglecting her changed attitude, however, leaves the summary incomplete. Also, it's fine to include snippets of dialogue if that is the best way to make the movie's action clear and that is what is done here. In fact, it seems you in particular needed to be reminded of that since you got the whole name thing wrong. As for Hana's ride, I believe you will find that the summary states exactly what happens in the film without any extra conclusion. I will double check to be sure. So, let's see about working out some of these details. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you are determined to be the one whose writing remains on this article, at least rewrite it to conform to the VERY CLEAR guidelines for plot and OR. You say I make valid points, yet you reverted every single change. Rewrite the article yourself, as I did, but do it properly. You are engaging in edit warring, which I see is a habit of yours, but please, don't do it here. Your above paragraph simply restates your own opinions, and your opinions are the problem. If you leave them out entirely, there will be nothing to argue about. I am not stating opinions in the Plot Summary. That is the difference. And the Plot Summary guidelines state outright that no dialogue should be included. --TEHodson 21:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your conclusions are your opinions and other editors have weighed in on this summary. You are edit warring, which is unfortunate when I showed my willingness to work with you on this. I would suggest you take note of wp:noconsensus first of all: change requires consensus. Using a line of dialogue to make a point is perfectly okay, especially since there is really no other way to express this very important point. Since you missed what is going on with Almasy and his name, I would suggest you stop weighing in on it. You're also wrong about Hana's travel plans at the end of the film; the text just says what happens. However, I would like your help with the ending for Caravaggio. Since it's clear that he has changed in some way, how do you think the plot summary should handle it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I will take this one paragraph at a time:


 * In the final days of the Italian Campaign of World War II, Hana, a French-Canadian nurse working and living in a bombed Italian monastery, looks after a critically burned man who speaks English but refuses to reveal even his name. She begins a romance with Kip, a Sikh sapper in the British Army who defuses bombs, despite her worries that she is a "curse" on those close to her.

Almasy doesn't not "refuse to reveal his name." He states repeatedly that he cannot remember who he is. Hana's private worry that she is "cursed" is not a plot point; it is a character point. Given that we are supposed to be brief, I would argue it should be removed. But I won't fight over that one.


 * They are joined by David Caravaggio, a Canadian Intelligence Corps operative who says he is working to disarm the partisans. He questions the patient, who tells Hana and Caravaggio about his past as Hungarian cartographer Count László de Almásy. In the late 1930s, he was mapping the Sahara as part of a Royal Geographical Society archeological and surveying expedition in Egypt and Libya with Englishman Peter Madox and others. Their expedition is joined by a British couple, Geoffrey and Katherine Clifton. Katherine and Almásy have an affair which founders on her guilt and his jealousy. The explorers find and document the Cave of Swimmers and the surrounding area until they are stopped due to the onset of the war. Madox leaves his Tiger Moth at Kufra oasis before the two go their separate ways.

"disarm the partisans." This sentence is unclear--what and who are the partisans, and why is this detail important to the plot, rather than to his character? "founders on guilt...jealousy" This is your opinion. Others might say that the relationship founders for the reason she herself states, which is that she "can't do it" i.e., commit adultery. You have stated your personal opinion for the relationship ending, which is not congruent with WP guidelines.


 * Caravaggio was a professional thief; he lost his thumbs in an interrogation by a German Army officer and has avenged himself on two of the three men he holds responsible. Only Almásy remains; he accuses the English patient of being the Count and betraying the British. The burn victim insists he has it backwards: he explains how the British betrayed the Count.

"the Count." It is silly to keep referring to him this way, as he is never referred to as such in the film itself. He is referred to as "the patient" and as "Almasy", even though he is a Count. You seem to feel his aristocratic status is important to the plot, when it is so beside the point as to never be mentioned. And Caravaggio hasn't "lost" his thumbs; they were cut off, and he only believes that the patient is somehow responsible for his having been tortured, so saying "Only Almasy remains" is not quite accurate.


 * When Geoffrey discovers the affair, he lures Katherine aboard their plane and pilots it into the camp in a crash aimed at Almásy. The husband is killed instantly, she is seriously injured, but Almásy narrowly hit. He takes her to the cave, leaving her with provisions, and begins a three-day walk in scorching heat looking for help. Dazed and dehydrated, he stumbles into British-held El Tag and desperately attempts to explain his non-British name and Katherine's plight. Under questioning, he loses his temper, is detained and transported in chains on a train north to Benghazi. He escapes behind German lines and trades the British maps to them for gasoline. He flies the Tiger Moth to the cave, but Katherine has died. As he flies himself and Katherine's body away, they are shot down by German anti-aircraft guns Her body is not recovered; he is burned and rescued by Bedouin. "I had the wrong name," the English patient explains.

It is only implied that Geoffrey has discovered the affair; Katherine tells Almasy that "he must have known." It is not a fact, though. As there is no scene showing him and Katherine getting into the plane, you have no basis for the assertion that he "lured" her into it. Almasy is never hit by the plane--he rolls out of its path, so this is inaccurate. "Dazed and dehydrated" is your interpretation of his status--you are stating an opinion. "Desperately" is also your interpretation, as is "he loses his temper"; someone else might say that he is too incoherent or something, which is why we do not interpret the actions of characters--they are subjective. "I had the wrong name" is now completely without context, but we are not supposed to include dialogue, and it isn't necessary that we explain the exact details of why the English soldiers don't understand who he is.


 * Caravaggio changes his plans. On the last day of the war, Hana's fears are put to rest when Kip disarms a frightening live explosive. She cannot refuse Almásy's wish for a fatal dose of morphine. Kip's new post is north of Florence; she catches a ride that way.

"Caravaggio changes his plans." As we have no idea what his plans were, how is it important that he's changed them? "Hana's fears are put to rest..." That is you interpreting her feelings. "Frightening explosive." This is your interpretation again. The explosive is not frightening to Kip, for example, so it is merely a statement of your belief about Hana's belief. "She cannot refuse..." She DOES not refuse, but certainly she could have--again, "cannot" is your interpretation of her feelings about things. "Kip's post...she catches a ride that way." Nothing that is said in the film's dialogue indicates that she is going to join him, and you've used casual language to state that she leaves. I would argue that "Hana and Caravaggio leave." is both more accurate and more economical, but I won't go to the wall over it.


 * Additional points: Your sentence about "romance, tragedy, etc" is entirely your interpretation of the film, as are any references to the character's "dashing" or "handsome" status. Unless a character's stated beauty is critical to the plot, we don't comment on their looks, as they are entirely subjective. Also, you have several times restored the paragraph about casting Kristin Scott Thomas without noticing that it was moved to the Production section last night, so every time you do that it appears twice in the article. It is a pre-production detail, so it doesn't belong in Cast.


 * I also feel that it is very important to note that the film is told in flash-backs. This sort of storytelling style point is usually part of a plot summary. I hope I have made my points clear this time. --TEHodson 22:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten once more, this time leaving in all the plot points you feel are important, but removing all your opinions about what they mean, why characters do what they do, etc. All of that stuff is OR, without question. You can say that a character picks up a book, but not what they are thinking or why they have done so--that is OR. I hope this rewrite will suit. By the way, rewrites and removal of content that violates WP policy doesn't require consensus. Consensus is encouraged, obviously, when multiple people are working on an article together, but simply taking out OR is okay to do, as it is never acceptable, no matter how many people think so.--TEHodson 22:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Almasy refuses to reveal his name. You take at face value his statement that he can't remember, but the payoff to the whole story is his statement that he had the wrong name, and for that he was unable to rescue Katherine. So, yes, I am aware that you don't get this about the movie and it's very basic. Sorry. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You skipped the jealousy scene. Here it is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The flashbacks thing is where your inexperience shows. It is not good style to talk about the film from the outside in the plot summary, as in, "then there is a scene where this happens". What is correct is to tell what happens in the film. We don't say, "In the beginning of the play King Lear there is a scene where the actor playing Lear meets with the actors playing his daughters and he divides the kingdom between them." Instead, we say, "Lear divided the kingdom between his daughters." So, not only is it unnecessary to mention there are flashbacks, it is usually poor style. I'm going to ask that you stop making that mistake. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware that the Count is referred to as a Count three or four times in the movie, including by himself. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I notice you're claiming that the husband didn't discover the affair. If you think that someone in the film must actually say it out loud, you are demonstrating that you don't know how a film tells a story. I sincerely hope that is not the case, since you are pretending that you are in a position to judge the work of others on a plot summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected your worst mistakes and accommodated you where possible. Thanks for your input. Despite your somewhat cloudy understanding of the film, you've managed to make a contribution. Much appreciated. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow. Your assumptions about me are incredible. I edited on WP, working on many FA, for years during a protracted illness, but am now back to my full-time life as a screenwriter and film director. I am not lacking in experience, but have many, many years on you. I am not going to argue any further with you, simply because you are clearly not able to understand the rules, nor the film itself. I was asked to check out and clean up this article by my friend Mike, another of the assistant editors who worked on the film with me, because he knew I used to edit here. After watching it frame-by-frame hundreds of times back at SZ, I am pretty clear about it, thank you anyway. We wanted this article to at least be reasonably well-written, but he and I agree that it is not worth dealing with you about it anymore. Most of my changes still stand at this point and, after all, the film exists and anyone can watch it and see for themselves what happens and decide for themselves why the characters do what they do without your "help." Enjoy your "victory." I learnt long ago that stupidity coupled with pig-headed stubbornness almost always wins here at WP, which is why so many of the great editors left years ago. Tomorrow I'm back at work so it's all yours.--TEHodson 03:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I made no assumptions about you. I base my opinion on your words. You deny that the husband learned of the affair, that he intentionally crashed the plane to attack his rival, that Hana was going to Florence to be near Kip, that the Count was referred to as the Count, that the Count had a bad case of jealousy, that Katharine was worried about her husband's reaction if he learned of the affair, and on and on. You actually don't know the story if you deny all that. Sorry, I can't praise your trenchant insight. It's going to be a while before the plot summary is as good as it was before you arrived. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is my last note; I have an early call. Every single thing you listed in the above paragraph constitutes YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE CHARACTERS. These are not the same things as cold, hard facts of plot. Katherine says to Almasy this: "He must have known." The film itself does not show this, there is no dialogue where Clifton says he knows. Katherine merely thinks so, and you have decided she is right. She probably is right, but that's immaterial. It's not a solid plot point. It is implied that the plane crash was deliberate, but Almasy says "Clifton always flew like a madman," so again, it's you interpreting the event as deliberate. You are probably right again, but again, this is therefore not a solid plot point. Hana does not state that she is joining Kip. Some people think she is, some people think that, as in the book, they never meet again. It is an open question, not a fact of plot. Katherine is, of course, worried that her husband will find out; that is common amongst adulterers, but it's not a fact that this is why the affair stops. There are many reasons she ends it, and if you are going to state one at least use her own words, not some made-up thing about jealousy or whatever. And most important, there is no scene of Katherine and Clifton getting into the plane, so you have absolutely no basis for your insistence that Clifton "lures" her into the plane. That is you making things up out of whole cloth, which is absolutely forbidden on WP. Finally, my entire argument is this: THE FACT OF MY INSIGHT BEING "TRENCHANT" OR NOT IS EXACTLY MY POINT--THE INSIGHTS OF NEITHER OF US SHOULD BE ANY PART OF THIS PLOT SUMMARY. Your insistence on keeping in things that you consider proper insights is exactly the problem. Go write a film essay, if that's what you want to do. This is not the place for you, or me, to interpret the characters' actions or feelings, nor to comment on their handsomeness or lack of it. You are writing prose, not a plot summary! Please learn the difference. I leave it now to others to try to teach you how to do this properly. Good-night.--TEHodson 06:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * And please, give us the hour and minute when someone calls Almasy "Count," or refers to him as "the Count." I've been running the film as I go through tomorrow's shot list and I haven't heard it once. (Update) We get it exactly once, at 2h 28m, when he gives his full name to the officer after he's come out of the desert. Every other time he is mentioned or addressed, it's as "the patient" or "Almasy," and once Kip calls him "Uncle." I don't know why you are so mesmerized by his title. It is confusing and nonsensical to use it. --TEHodson 06:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

TEHodson--you are correct on the "count" affiliation issue. Only one time during a recollection does the "count" identify himself as a "count" (after the three day walk when he is apprehended by the British military). It seems that any other time that there is an association of "count" with Almasy is it is the other person saying the word and usually it seems when attempting to identify the burned person. Therefore it would seem very easy to get confused that "count" was used often in film by the count. It was not and is the perception of the viewer that in their mind. It can be very difficult for come people to let go of their perceptions that in this case is a misperception because he was certainly not known to be the count as others would ask him and if they had to ask them they would not known and then to call him the "English Patient" would show that with certainty it was not common to call him count. This makes the situation all the more difficult when the "advocate" insists on their mis-developed perception and requires the other party to prove it. Not quite the "community" development of WP articles.

The "uncle" affiliation I think is with the finishing of the supply of condensed milk.

When it comes to portraying a proper account in an article is that if what is being used to represent something cannot in a court of law be accepted as evidence does not fit the definition of WP. Let me take as an example the "affair" of Katharine and Almasy. The only people that say that there is an affair going on are K & A. At times K says that one of the other characters knows but there is never a scene that shows that other characters see K & A din an affair; also she never says that she knows or has been told by another character that an affair is happening. The same is with Almasy. They speculate because there is never a distinct incident that defines that others know of the affair. No one says so to that effect. Therefore in a court of law no one can say that they knew about the affair; and any reference in the film is more likely to be a speculation. If someone says that they think "X" knows but are bot certain then that is speculation and hearsay. They do not know if the other person outside the affair knows about the affair. And as you pointed out, there is no scene of the Clifton's leading up to the crash at the camp therefore to say that K was lured is speculation. We do not know if her husband was aware of an affair with Almasy, only that something was up the morning after their first anniversary. There is a difference between the fact coming out in the dialogue and a scene exposing the fact. Both are absent from the film for Clifton to exemplify that he is aware of his wife's transgression WITH ALMASY. For this issue to continue is just non-productive as the film shows for itself just what we know. Any statement beyond that is not evidence, only speculation and a wide draw on any canvass.

I'll have to review the other comments made in the currently posted Talk Page and what has been archived; This article has come a long way from when it was first started when it contained a mixture of book and movie facts and perceptions. From what I have read this is not the first time of contention in the development of this article. Why that should happen is lost to me but what can you do but see these people through to the quality that WP needs for factual authority. This may have been caused then they could have been one article. But as those that have worked on articles before know, what has been presented is not always what is correct and debunking perceptions can be difficult.

And having just rejoined WP with filtering out misspellings just goes to show that longevity is not a sign of assurance that a statement is true and is always up for review. All you can hope is that others share that goal with cooperation.66.74.176.59 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering about a few statements:


 * "I'm sorry, but Almasy refuses to reveal his name. You take at face value his statement that he can't remember, but the payoff to the whole story is his statement that he had the wrong name, and for that he was unable to rescue Katherine. So, yes, I am aware that you don't get this about the movie and it's very basic. Sorry. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)"


 * Does he really refuse to disclose his name? Questioning the statements of others and bringing up traits about the Count should not be interpreted as he avoiding--He never says that he is avoiding.


 * "You skipped the jealousy scene. Here it is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)"


 * What is the jealousy scene--the scene when she hits her head under the bleachers? That is not much about jealousy as it is he showing his contempt toward her not wanting to continue the affair.


 * "not only is it unnecessary to mention there are flashbacks, it is usually poor style. I'm going to ask that you stop making that mistake. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)"


 * Referencing flashbacks is a very significant event in the playing of the scenes so that people can tell if the scene was first person or brought back as a recollection.


 * "I notice you're claiming ..... Despite your somewhat cloudy understanding of the film ....."


 * I'll generally pass on those statements as they seem to express too much personalization and judgment assassination. Why bother saying that what someone understand is wrong and what has been developed by someone is bad and then at the conclusion say that you have accommodated someone's statements? That is not a consensus building activity. There definitely is a need in a cooperative environment to temper one's statements because once you have set fire to a stack of twigs you do not have a stack of twigs after they have burned to white ash. If you do not want the stack of twigs to be white ash then do not set the fire.

What I find particularly disturbing with some of the banter is that someone changes text thinking that a consensus has been achieved when in fact if there remains an exchange of banter following then there has not been achieved consensus so why "Actually, we did agree to it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)" was said just goes to show that the meeting of the minds has yet to come about and possibly someone is pushing a perception of consensus on others rather than building consensus. It that the crux of what "TEHodson" concludes when encapsulating his views about this process? Because then you get into a ping pong game rather than a discussion that is better characterized in WP parlance as "edit warring."

Now, what is this script introduction? Is it certain that it was a script that was consulted--a version not of the final film product--or was it a transcript of the film? If there is a transcript then it should easily be possible to determine its fullness and credibility and just what was said and then a review of the film will give us the visual. Only both will give us a true depiction of the film. And what is currently in the banter is a depiction that may include a fill in the spaces vs. a depiction of the film content. It is not just a matter of something being said such as Geoffrey shown to have been aware of the affair if he saw them together when it was expected that they should not or he said something to the effect, or someone else said that Geoffrey said he thought or knew they were having an affair. Geoffrey is part of government and is working with others in government yet no one except for K & A say that they think Geoffrey may know. So outside of K & A knowledge it does not exist except with speculation of the viewer. To portray it any other way is speculation not truth.

Is it plausible? WP is not plausibility.

But if, as was said earlier about what is the crux at hand, if one person says that there has been consensus and then there is a difference of opinion then consensus has yet to be achieve. To change text to reflect what is the perception of consensus by one person is not the proper way to address the outcome as wanted by WP. Consensus is not a trading of this for that or pushing one view onto another.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Speculative statements
"When Geoffrey discovers the affair, he lures Katharine aboard their plane and pilots it into the camp in a crash aimed at Almásy." This statement is partially speculation. Geoffrey never said that he knew about the affair. He did wait in the taxi outside the entrance to the hotel when he saw Katharine depart the hotel and then saw her return the following morning. But no mention is made of knowing about the affair with Almásy. And Katharine after the crash speculated that he know but there is no film scene/dialogue confirming Geoffrey knew. As for luring, that type of plane from what I know and is shown in the film is a two seater so why Katharine went with Geoffrey to the camp presumably on the flight to collect Almásy is again speculation as there is no scene/dialogue to indicate why she was aboard. And just where three people were to ride the plane back to Cairo needs to be explained but not possible with the content of the film. Almásy was surprised to find her in the crashed plane. Moose shared an office suite with Geoffrey and he never indicated that Geoffrey knew about the affair, only that he believed that Almásy had killed the Cliftons.

"He escapes behind German lines and trades the British maps to them for gasoline." He escapes is on the train to Benghazi but whether it was behind German lines at the time is speculation although he does end up in German territory to trade the maps for gasoline from them.

"despite her worries that she is a "curse" on those close to her." There is no film scene or dialogue to indicate that she is, with Kip, hesitant about a relationship because of her presumed cursed life. She does say that death seems to become involved with those she develops relationships but she never says so about Kip. So to say "despite" is an incorrect association.66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There is something amiss about the following:

"You are denying the obvious. I respect skepticism about interpreting a film's events, but clearly Geoffrey learns of the affair. His actions, as stated in the plot summary, are to lure Katharine on board (based on her words), and fly it into the camp where Almasy is. That's what happens in the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 5) "Katharine and Almásy have an affair which founders on his jealousy and her guilt." Please cite a scene or scenes from the film itself that states this is the reason for the affair ending, and explain your use of the word "foundering" rather than simply "ended." As I said two weeks ago, I just re-watched the movie from start to finish, and this is not what happens. It is your interpretation of what happens. Katherine ends the relationship abruptly, at the outdoor movie show, saying "I can't do this" over and over. She says to Almasy that she has to stop, and that at some point they might bump into someone who will see them. She says it will "kill" Geoffrey. She does NOT speak at all about her own feelings in this scene. She does not say she feels guilt. And Almasy has not behaved jealously at this point. After the relationship ends he begins to act erratically, makes a scene at the International Sand Club dinner, and accuses her of sleeping with other men (the scene you linked to on YouTube happens well after the affair has ended, and in any case, we don't use YouTube as a reference--the film has to be seen in order if you are trying to refresh your memory for a plot summary). But all this conversation and behavior is AFTER the affair has ended. We are not supposed to speculate about feelings, or to describe what we think people are thinking. We are supposed to merely say what happens. Katherine ends the affair. Period. Either you are remembering events out of order, or you are doing OR. I am glad to see the form your discourse is taking. This is progress. You are really improving in some respects.

Apparently you forgot what Katharine says when she ends it. You can find a transcription online if you want to review her reasons, which involve her fear of what it would do to her husband if he learned of the affair. Perhaps you forgot."

Where in the film is it that indicates that Geoffrey knows that K & A are having an affair? Am I missing something besides the obvious use of speculation? WP is not the obvious but the facts. Geoffrey should know that K & A are having an affair since their social circle seems to be so limited and he is working for the government that has spies. But no one except K & A seem to make reference or disclosure of the affair. So if only K & A know for certain and no one else discloses an assumption then no one else can claim to know about the affair. If no one except K & A know then how can Geoffrey lure her. Katharine offers that an affair will kill Geoffery but Geoffrey is never shown in a scene that has him viewing K & A when they are having a trist--walking hand in hand on the side walk, or entering a hotel, or leaving a bedroom, etc. In her reasons, Katharine never says that Geoffrey knows. Almasy seems surprised to find her in the plane but she offers no reason why she is there or that Geoffrey knew about the affair. It is fact that she speculates but it is not fact that Geoffrey knew. We do not know if Geoffrey knew. We do not even know if the trip during which the plane crashes at the camp is the trip to take Almasy back to Cairo. Almasy said that Geoffrey offered to fly Almasy back to Cairo from the camp but the plane crash trip is never absolutely identified with being the one that would take Almasy back to Cairo, and with a bit of speculation on my part, where was Almasy to be on the plain when all we see during its flight has only two people--never three--therefore there could be a lack of space for three people. Katharine certainly should have been aware just for what purpose the flight was taking place. An obvious conclusion on the part of the viewer but not statement made by the characters in the film. Katharine tells us Geoffrey was professing his live for her on the flight but Katharine never says that Geoffrey told her he wanted to kill her or Almasy. So, again, if not said and not shown in a scene(s) in the film then it is speculation and anyone that advocates for it to be in the plot is pushing on others their speculations regardless how obvious they are presumed. Why it was said that consensus existed with these perceptions in the plot is very perplexing and I hope they are just unaware of just what it is that is going on rather than being disagreeable. "Perhaps you forgot," Ring Cinema wrote but forget what? The perception developed by Ring Cinema when that person viewed and recalled the movie? TEP is not the best example of cinema to provide all the fill in for all the cracks and crevices and angles. The viewers get to speculate about that but that is not what WOP wants in its articles.66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"Kip's new post is north of Florence; she and Caravaggio catch a ride that way."

We know from dialogue that Kip is posted north of Florence but we do not know the travel route to be taken. We do not know if the new post although north of Florence can be reached after passing near or through Florence or what distance is it from Florence. All we know is that it is north of Florence. So to say that Hana and Caravaggio are catching a ride "that way" is only speculation as we do not know if the travel route is the same for both.

We can speculate that Hana if going to Florence probably would seek out Kip but that is never mentioned in the film.66.74.176.59 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"He escapes behind German lines and trades the British maps to them for gasoline."

All we know is that when Almasy walked to British-held El Tag is that he is detained, chained and transported by train north to Benghazi. We do not know at what point Almasy escaped from the British and was it near or far from German held or occupied territory. We really cannot say that he was behind German lines because we do not know where were those lines. We can speculate that he would likely exchange the maps for gasoline where he could find Madox's Plane. But that is speculation, not established fact. We know that Madox left the plane at a place but we do not know if it remained there from the time of Madox's departure, the arrival of the Germans and the exchange of the maps for gasoline. The film does not include dialogue that says the distance between Almasy's escape from the British and Almasy's exchanging of the maps/gasoline. All we can be certain about is that where ever it was that Almasy had to be to get the plane was in German controlled territory.[small edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)