Talk:The Shawshank Redemption/Archive 3

Plot
I made some brief changes to the plot, there seems to be a lot of OR in there, particularly about the warden's motivation for throwing Andy in solitary, which I changed to just explain what happens rather than the reasoning behind it. Andy can never tell anyone what he knows and if he was freed, he would likely have had an "accident" like Tommy, and when his first month is up and he refuses to carry on the scam, hes left for another month. It's clear that the warden put him in there to put him in his place. EDIT Also it mentions he was sexually assaulted, while this was the implication this is never confirmed. They certainly try and he gets beat up a lot but again this is assuming things instead of describing what is shown. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, whaddya know, there's actually already a discussion here about the old plot which JBTX basically restored. Well that is handy. Also we don't need to know he is Andrew "Andy" Dufresne. Frankly we don't need to know he is Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding either, their common name is Red and Andy. We don't need to know Brooks goes to a halfway house, we don't need to know that Red goes to the same place, or that Andy steals a suit, and the opinion of why the Warden refuses to listen IS Original research, which i mentioned and you just ignored. The plot has been worked on by several people to get it to where it was and I have done my best to incorporate your changes, some of which we good at chopping down over explanation. The blanket restore was unnecessary and incorrect and the info that was removed was removed for a reason. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to play the annoying and timewasting game of reverting user's work then I have the greater justification for doing it as I edited that plot over a year ago, and was restoring it. Anyway, now lets go through your baffling denial of what happens in the film and the structure of the plot. Here is my justification of the plot structure I wrote:

Paragraph 1 introduces Andy (I dont really care about full names), and introduces the Warden and Hadley as they appear first, Hadley kills an inmate, is therefore "brutal" and Warden issues the bible. Red is continously called in for parole every decade and so and best to get this out of the way in the plot. Then we get to your first, and amazing, denial. That the Sisters don't sexually assault him. Barring over of course that they are called the Sisters, here is just one clip I found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-5fxAqZlDQ in the shower, and when he is raped Red narrates it as saying "I would like to tell you Andy resisted" etc

Paragraph 2 Andy overhears Hadley complaining about taxes on a forthcoming inheritance, and informs him about a financial loophole. After a vicious assault by the Sisters puts Andy in the infirmary, Hadley cripples Bogs, who is then sent to another prison and saving Andy from future attacks. -how it is in the film

Norton reassigns Andy to assist elderly inmate Brooks Hatlen (James Whitmore) at the prison library; a pretext for Andy to manage financial requests. His advice and expertise are soon sought by other guards at Shawshank and from nearby prisons. Andy also begins writing weekly letters to the state government for funds to improve the decrepit library. -pretty much like the film here too

In 1954, Brooks is freed on parole into a halfway house but, unable to adjust to the outside world, he hangs himself.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kotNxb2YApk full scene right here

Andy dedicates the expanded library to him, and receives a library donation of The Marriage of Figaro record. He plays an excerpt over the public address system, resulting in him receiving solitary confinement. After his release, Andy explains that hope is something the prison cannot take from him, but Red dismisses the idea. In 1963, Norton begins exploiting prison labor for public works, profiting by undercutting skilled labor costs and receiving kickbacks. He has Andy launder the money using the alias "Randall Stevens". - Yup again like the film

Compare the follwing two paragraphs, this is mostly word count, and see where the superfluos language lies:

In 1965, Tommy Williams (Gil Bellows) is incarcerated for robbery. He joins Andy and Red's circle of friends, and Andy assists him in getting his GED. After hearing the details of Andy's case, Tommy reveals that an inmate at another prison, Elmo Blatch (Bill Bolender), committed a nearly identical murder, suggesting Andy's innocence. Andy approaches Norton with this information, but Norton fears Andy may reveal his corruption should he be released. Norton places Andy in solitary confinement, then orders Hadley to kill Tommy under the pretext of an escape attempt. Andy returns to his cell and tells Red of his dream of living in Zihuatanejo, a Mexican Pacific coastal town, and setting up a hotel with boat rides for customers. Red shrugs it off, but Andy instructs him, should Red ever be freed, to visit a specific hayfield near Buxton and retrieve a package.

In 1965, Tommy Williams (Gil Bellows) is incarcerated for robbery. He joins Andy and Red's circle of friends, and Andy assists him in getting his GED. In 1966, after hearing the details of Andy's case, Tommy reveals that an inmate at another prison claimed responsibility for an identical murder, suggesting Andy's innocence. Andy approaches Norton with this information, but the warden refuses to listen. Norton places Andy in solitary confinement and has Tommy murdered by Hadley under the guise of an escape attempt. Andy refuses to continue with the scam, but Norton threatens to destroy the library and take away his protection and preferential treatment. After Andy is released from solitary he tells Red of his dream of living in Zihuatanejo, a Mexican Pacific coastal town, and setting up a hotel with boat rides for his customers. While Red shrugs it off as unrealistic, Andy instructs him, should he ever be freed, to visit a specific hayfield near Buxton to retrieve a package.

The first, the version I restored, is more concise and suited in my opinion.

The next day at roll call, Andy's cell is empty. Enraged, Norton throws one of Andy's rocks at the poster of Raquel Welch which tears through, revealing a tunnel that Andy dug through the wall with his hammer over the last two decades. The previous night, Andy took one of Norton’s suits and switched Norton's ledger with the prison Bible, escaping with it through the tunnel and the prison sewage drain during a thunderstorm. Andy then poses as Randall Stevens to withdraw most of the corruption money from several banks, while police hunt for him, sending evidence of Norton's corruption and murder of Tommy to the press. The police arrive at the prison and Hadley is arrested, but Norton commits suicide to evade arrest. - another cutdown from the current plot

Andy steals the suit to pose as Randall Stevens.

After 40 years Red finally receives parole, allocated to the same apartment where Brooks committed suicide and also beginning to fear the outside world. Remembering Andy's advice, he visits Buxton and finds a cache of money as well as a note left by Andy, telling him to get to Zihuatanejo. Red violates his parole and travels to Fort Hancock, Texas to skip the border to Mexico, having regained hope. The two are happily reunited on the beach to begin a new life. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRBl0GPBm4o same haflway house, also, the new life is added there as they really begin a new life.

As I come across this a lot now, I think that people who haven't actually seen the damn movie in a long time refrain from editing, that is OR if there ever was a definition. One hour of my time wasted, Good day, next article for me The Road. Apoligies for horrendous grammar etc my keyboard is getting weird. --JTBX (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The plot sections are not for informing people who haven't seen the film or reminding them, it is about conveying enough information to give htem an overview of the plot. Also I don't consider it annoying to take my own time to integrate your version with a version that has been active on here for 4 months and which has been worked on by 3-4 different users to achieve a refined version, while you alone believe your year old version is superior. If you want to believe that, fine, but discuss it here with others first. If you want to be pedantic about it, the version I edited in combining the previous with your changes is shorter than the version you keep adding aggressively, so that excuse flies right out the window. That I have to explain to you that I'm not questioning its the same halfway house, but that it is not an important detail that it is the same halfway house shows you perhaps do not understand why we are are having this discussion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You are removing details that are important to understanding the film, the same halfway house has the soundtrack written after it, its important to understanding themes of hope and defeat, etc while you are wanting to make this an excessive summary. I don't why you are doing this. There is a difference between summaries and removing details altogether. It is you who has to justify your removal on here, not me and stop the reverting.--JTBX (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why even have Andy playing the Fugaro record over the speakers? why even have details of why Andy went to prison? why not just write a one sentence summary, Andy goes to prison, befriends Red, regains hope then breaks out. Much easier and helps people understand right? following your line of reasoning. --JTBX (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have justified my CHANGES to the plot, you haven't. They're just changes you think are important. If you don't like your year old plot being changed do not post it on Wikipedia where users are free to make changes. I have attempted to discuss and I have even gone to the effort of working in your changes to the previous, much cleaner and clearer plot that wasn't filled with OR and actual superfluous details. I also made it shorter since you kept using that as an excuse. You're being unreasonable and defensive when I have explained to you repeatedly why the changes were being made and that the changes have been supported by others while your changes are supported only by yourself and your definition of what is important, i.e. "there is a song on the soundtrack named after it". Anyway, I am going to throw a 3RR warning your way and then wait for others input since I don't want to violate 3RR myself even to fix things. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You are removing details on the film which no one else has supported, partly because you edited the plot yourself from March 2012. Instead of listening to my arguments that you were removing and denying details that are in the film, you try to justify it by saying it summarises etc, which is total nonsense but it is simply going to far. You are not summarising but completely removing details. When I am trying to restore the plot you keep reverting it instead paying attention and then paste on my userpage vandalism templates. Well done, when I try to do the same to you, as I am entitled to do so, you revert as vandalism. Last I checked, keeping important details that appear in the film in a concise summary is not OR. On the other hand, removing those details because you cannot remeber whether they appeared or not, is OR and borderline vandalism. I don't see the issues to discuss here personally. --JTBX (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The plot has basically the same structure nearly a year ago as I and few others edited it. What I did is not even a restore as you imply, but went to the current plot as it was and added back a few things that were missing, while cutting out extra details which you and I actually agree on, like the Warden's motivation, but for some reason you kept in there. Thats the paragraph above I was referring to above. I don't think you realise how annoying it is to revert someone's work then put the onus on them to write essays to discuss the changes on a talk page and waste their time, and then simply refuse to listen and throw warning templates their way. It seems I only get this kind of behaviour from film article users.--JTBX (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're not entitled to post 3RR warnings on my page when I haven't violated 3RR, as I said on your talk page where you have removed your valid warnings for 3RR and vandalism, you're being childish. People HAVE supported the plot as it was, in only the last week RepublicanJacobite restored it because there "was nothing wrong with it", and BlakeBurba has also contributed to it, particularly in copy editing. As I have said repeatedly, the plot is there to convey the big picture not every minute detail like, for instance, stealing a suit or replacing a ledger with a bible. What does that convey that just saying he escaped with the ledger does not? Your plot is riddled with unnecessary information that is there not because others forgot it (which is stupid because I've watched the film about 20 times), but because it is not important. I'm not interested in your belief that something is important because it has a track named after it. By that logic why are we not discussing them having "Suds on the Roof" and then "Shawshank Redemption"ing? So THAT is another excuse that falls apart. The very first sentence contains superfluous detail.


 * "In 1947, banker Andrew "Andy" Dufresne (Tim Robbins) is convicted of murdering his adulterous wife and her lover, based on circumstantial evidence."
 * We don't need to state that his name, shortened, is Andy. And really? His adulterous wife? I guess she could have a lover and be totally monogamous? We do not agree on the warden's motivation, no motivation is given, you've inserted Original Research to say that he doesn't want him out because he is afraid of being exposed, when its as easy to say he doesn't want him out because without him he doesn't make money. That's the problem with Original Research, its up for interpretation. You say it is annoying for someone to revert your work, ignoring the fact that I integrated your work, not reverted it, then you reverted my work. So you're right, it is annoying. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh now I see, yes that does appear in the film. Warden is afraid he will be exposed for his corruption. The ledger part is important because thats the evidence Andy sends to expose him. Its not OR as you imply again, it appears in the film, if what happens in the film is OR then yes I am writing OR. I personally didn't see where you integrated my work. The adulterous bit, yeah that can be removed perhaps, it a weird sentence structure. I didn't understand your logic, I just mentioned that the half way house part is important because both Brooks and Red move there, Brooks kills himself but Red regains hope. Its a major part of the film. 20 times? Maybe you just enjoyed the action sequences. --JTBX (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Being in the same safe house has nothing to do with Red regaining hope. There are specific parts in the plot that cover it, that said hte plot is not for conveying themes either, it is for conveying what happens BROADLY. "but is regularly sexually assaulted by a group nicknamed "the Sisters" and their leader Bogs" is OR because it is never explicitly stated or shown that they successfully do this, assaulted covered it fine enough, " that an inmate at another prison, Elmo Blatch (Bill Bolender)" introduces another character and a cast name that is unnecessary since the character is never mentioned again and the only important factor is that Andy is provably innocent, "Andy took one of Norton’s suits and switched Norton's ledger with the prison Bible," is entirely and completely unimportant and I have explained to you three times why it is so. "two are happily reunited on the beach to begin a new life." is dramatization, what happens on screen is they are happily reunited, what happens after that is up to interpretation, they could get crushed by a falling plane for all we know. I could go on and on, and I did, with your plot, that is why I edited it. But you are unwilling to allow those changes to be made because it violates the plot you like, even though noone has had any complaints about missing details for 4 months. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Being in the same safe house has nothing to do with Red regaining hope. Yes it does, because it contrasts with Brooks' situation, this is liek saying they are not in a prison.

but is regularly sexually assaulted by a group nicknamed "the Sisters" and their leader Bogs" this certainly happens, and just assaulted implies that he is beaten and not raped, they are predatory etc

that an inmate at another prison, Elmo Blatch (Bill Bolender)" introduces another character and a cast name that is unnecessary since the character is never mentioned again and the only important factor is that Andy is provably innocent, -doesnt really make any sense, I would include Elmo though

"Andy took one of Norton’s suits and switched Norton's ledger with the prison Bible," is entirely and completely unimportant and I have explained to you three times why it is so. Its part of the escape, theres a long sequence of it. People will otherwise read thinking how we went to the bank etc in prison clothes

''"two are happily reunited on the beach to begin a new life." is dramatization, what happens on screen is they are happily reunited, what happens after that is up to interpretation, they could get crushed by a falling plane for all we know.'' - sure remove this then, I can agree here but I added this because of how Red would work with Andy in their new job, Andy is scrubbing a boat at this point when we wants to set up his boat ride hotel.

''I could go on and on, and I did, with your plot, that is why I edited it. But you are unwilling to allow those changes to be made because it violates the plot you like,'' - I'm unwilling to allow removal of content essential to understanding the film and its message in a brief summary which doesn't go over 700 words.

even though noone has had any complaints about missing details for 4 months. - irrelevant, I have. I meant to say that you edited the plot before on March 2012 so you may be influenced by what you did then. --JTBX (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Jumping into this conversation a bit late, but I have read the above, and my response is simple: I agree with Darkwarriorblake, who has stated his reasons much more clearly. These recent edits are unnecessary and unhelpful. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  00:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding that the new changes don't help either. Things like knowing he was using the warden's suit, or replaced the ledger with the bible, are extraneous details that the rest of the article doesn't call back to, and thus weigh down the plot which is supposed to be concise. As part of the group of editors that worked to trim this down to this (and this wasn't an easy film to do that with), I really don't see much to change barring if new thematic information about the work later is added. --M ASEM  (t) 00:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I atleast add in the part he is sexually assaulted? as it is what happens. I personally feel disgusted having wasted all this time to edit, to explain it all,(like the Godfather dispute) but it seems others "jump into the conversation" late and can simply pull all the strings, rendering all the effort null and void. Sometimes its easy to simply look at whether something has an edit summary and simply revert than actually reading the editor's worth in what was actually contributed. What a pointless "encyclopedia" then. Fine - laissez faire. Plot doesn't even read like the film anymore.--JTBX (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am still contending this and leavingit open to discussion. I think that the details, especially the part about being sexually assaulted, should not be left out. JTBX (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Reopened discussion
I would like to continue this above discussion with more outside input due to the unfair and bullying tactics used by film article editors to own certain film articles as their territory, continually violating many Wikipedia policies while reminding others of minimal faults.

I am still contesting this as I stated, I complied with some of your arguments for example Andrew "Andy" Dufresne should be simplified etc, but overall you are going way too far in and actually removing important plot details. Also, some of the sentences in the plot are in a ridiculous and confusing order making it hard to read. Furthermore I decreased the word count and made some sentences more concise.--JTBX (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can contest it all you goddamn please, you're a lone editor and otehrs do not agree with the edit you're making and I have EXPLAINED IN DETAIL ABOVE WHY YOUR EDITS WERE NOT APPROPRIATE. Waiting 2 months did not make them more appropriate. Can't believe I have to have the same discussion again with the same user. JTBX is ignoring the above established points that were backed and are maintained by other users and after waiting a period of time has gone back to restoring his 2 year old plot which fails to be suitable in the above, already stated ways. He is now just edit warring to restore the content he prefers over the content built out of collaboration ON THAT VERY PLOT and then improved by other editors including Jacobite and Masem. I cannot see how his actions constitute anything other than edit warring and vandalism and a complete inability or refusal to accept changes to his preferred version. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we really have to go through this again? Just please read the above discussion included the additions by Masem and OldJacobite and save us all the trouble JTBX, you're just restoring your old plot, people aren't idiots. There are THREE editors who opposed the changes you made then, they are the same changes now. It's hilarious that you're calling ME out for ego.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all let me get this out the way, OldJacobite and Masem obviously have not watched the film to comment in such a way, Jacobite's comment is ridiculous and I'm not even going to consider it part of the discussion. Masem is right in that minute details should be left out usually-but misses the crucial point that they are very important in this case. They highlight Andy's ingenuity in breaking out, other wise people will think he climbed out of a sewer and walked into bank covered in...

Secondly, instead of ranting and slapping warnings to others in rage actually look at what I edited. I restored certain details, not an old plot, that you callously removed in your plot trimmings, I agreed that the plot should be concise but you removed so much its not reflective of the film any more, seriously. Like the part where he is sexually assaulted. I just don’t understand, that’s like removing rape from a rape film, its part of what happens to him.

Then there are the sentence structures, like Hadley crippling Boggs, which should come at the end of the paragraph. Honestly, I could go on, but the plot I am trying to put forward is fine, the details are accurately weighed, it is summarised, and is below 700 words. What more could you want just short of film censorship and denial of what happens.--JTBX (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The important thing to take it said by me then:

"I have justified my CHANGES to the plot, you haven't. They're just changes you think are important. If you don't like your year old plot being changed do not post it on Wikipedia where users are free to make changes. I have attempted to discuss and I have even gone to the effort of working in your changes to the previous, much cleaner and clearer plot that wasn't filled with OR and actual superfluous details. I also made it shorter since you kept using that as an excuse. You're being unreasonable and defensive when I have explained to you repeatedly why the changes were being made and that the changes have been supported by others while your changes are supported only by yourself and your definition of what is important, i.e. 'there is a song on the soundtrack named after it'."
 * I worked with you to include the edits you had made essentially restoring the original plot, into the modern one. It just isn't enough for you because you believe " the same apartment where Brooks committed suicide" is important. Add into that the poor writing in general and it just gets old having to repeat this discussion. Hadley crippling boggs should come at the end of the paragraph, why?


 * You genuinely exacerbate me, the WHY is explained above, in full BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING THE EXACT SAME EDITS THIS DISCUSSION COVERS. Read the above explanation for why. You are adding in unnecesary information you think is important (explained above) and the additions are poorly written. "Andy then poses as Randall Stevens to withdraw most of the corruption money from several banks, while police hunt for him, sending evidence of Norton's corruption and murder of Tommy to the press. " Ignoring that it is easy to see you copy pasted your old plot because you mispelled Stevens as Stephens, and replaced laundered money with corruption money (wha?). Your edits are a net negative for the plot, this was explained then, backed up by three editors even if you try to undermine us over at Fluffernutters page by accusing me and Jacobite of being in league with each other. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because the discussion wasn't finalised. You kept throwing tantrums and I couldn't dicuss anything rationally with you, you still don't get it. The information is not unnecessary.

From WP:FILMPLOT

Plot summaries are self-contained sections ("Plot", "Plot summary") in film articles that complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects (see WP:PLOT)... Per Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers, all of the film's important events should be outlined without censoring details
 * Thanks for posting that and backing up my side of the argument. -__- that's why you don't get it even when it is explained to you by multiple editors, you don't understand that only you think them sharing an apartment is an important plot point that requires the limited word limit dedicated to it. Nothing you added says anything that wasn't already there, it just says it in twice or three times as much text while restoring that old content you preferred. Editors are not idiots, they can read your edits and see that it doesn't back up the claims you make. The sexual assault item is the only difference and it has been discussed multiple times that nothing is shown on screen, that implies the assaults ever successfully got to that stage. Nor does it detract from the plot that him being assaulted (an assault does cover that) is described as asssault. Every single change you made is already in the plot apart from explicitly stating sexual assault, that's the joke. The edits just say things longer and poorer while consuming parts of the word limit with junk about same apartment rooms. Oh, and of course the original research. The purpose of your edits is not to convey greater meaning because they fail to do that, the purpose is to restore the content you prefer. It was when this discussion was had last, it is now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cutting out Andrew Dufrense to Andy is fine, a justified change, changing sexual assult to assault is not. Andy murders his wife and her lover? whos her lover? Andy? needs to be clarified. --JTBX (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, people might think Andy killed himself! That makes sense. He is charged for the murder of his wife and her lover, he killed himself, the way English works the sentence is clearly talking about the same person. Best add in "adulterous" so we are clear that him killing her and her lover is not killing her and himself. Do you read what you write? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You conflated my argument by adding in the rest of the sentence, again,her wife and her lover is just confusing and I have never seen this before. It is usually accompanied by affair, or adulterous.--JTBX (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that Andy is raped, Red said so in the very beginning. The parts of the half way house are all core elements of the film, major scenes, showing Brooks suicide while Red regains hope again weve been through this. It does not get through to you. Andy wearing a blue shirt is unimportant, Andy being sexually assaulted as compared to assaulted is.--JTBX (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Red said explicitly he was raped? No he didn't. He doesn't even say sex. The halfway house is a setting. Why is the supermarket where they both work not important? Why that Red can't go to the bathroom without being told to? Why is only the one area you have picked important? The current plot explains exactly when he regains hope, when he is on the bus and ACTUALLY says, "I hope." He does this in response to the promise made to Andy, also covered in the plot. Your argument is like a bucket with no bottom. "his wife and her lover" is not confusing unless you do not speak English. Are you seriously telling me, that in any film/tv show you have ever seen, people always says "my adulterous wifes lover!"? It's a lie to support your change because I refuse to believe that you actually believe that is how it works. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean I need to be clear on this, you genuinely think that "In 1947, banker Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) is convicted of murdering his wife and her lover" means he is killing himself? Really? HIS wife and HER lover? This is what I am dealing with here people. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Red said explicitly he was raped? No he didn't. He doesn't even say sex. - Yes he did, he says "I would have liked to have told you that andy resisted", in fact, the only time andy resists he is given that brutal beating which leads to Boggs being crippled by Hadley.

First of all, the adulterous wife bit isnt even a big issue, its something which you once again picked on, but fine, I meant focusing for people to read, but sure remove it. Confusing, as in it is still understandable but would require two reads through. Anyway, the halfway house is like an anchor to show they fear the outside world, if you remove it at least we should include the comparison of Brooks and Red, the half way house is just the easiest mechanic to use as it appears inthe film and is like two words. Supermarket was in fact added some time ago, but is an ddendum to the already established line of comparison and can be removed.

"people always says "my adulterous wifes lover!"?" no they usually say cheat, or affair. What shows do you watch. --JTBX (talk)

My two cents: Should be mentioned that he was put in prison for killing his and an unnamed lover (its a key plot point). It should also include that Andy was being sexually assaulted, because there is a broad difference between a normal assault to being attacked sexually and again, ok its a POV, but it also provides continued inspiration for him to continue his tunnel and want to escape plan. The point is, Wiki MOS: Film Plot says that it should not include trivial details and be restricted to a certain amount of words. If the plot aint broke, then dont fix it. I am all for it to be kept the way it is. MisterShiney ( Come say hi ) 16:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"should also include that Andy was being sexually assaulted, because there is a broad difference between a normal assault to being attacked sexually and again" exactly, plot points, plot points. Though I would disagree with simply keeping it the way it is as that is not the way forward fo an encyclopedia, as people are reading it right now and will tell their friends "hey I learned about what happened in Shawshank Redemption on wiki", to which a friend whose watched the film will reply, "you know he was raped right?"--JTBX (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Again trival details are things like rainy day, colour of shirts etc but sexual assault and Brookes suicide/comparision with red, is not.--JTBX (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sexual assault was not your only change JTBX, and Brookes apartment that Red eventually has is a visual effect to tease his suicide for those watching, a THEME if you will. Them sharing a room is not a notable part of the plot. And this " Unwilling to negotiate as usual. " over at Wikiproject Film, I negotiated, again you forget the above discussion and THIS discussion where I posted a quote from the previous discussion about how I incorporated what edits of yours I could into the current plot. Your arguments are hollow, you can't remember previous comments even from the last hour, and you refuse to accept the input of now 4 editors (with Mr Shiney supporting only your sexual assault claim and nothing else). I'm curious how old you are JTBX, because the only people I can see being so obsessed, OBSESSED over the alleged rape are people who hang out on IMDb and people under 21 years of age.Certainly someone who would write "hey I learned about what happened in Shawshank Redemption on wiki", to which a friend whose watched the film will reply, "you know he was raped right?" and think that is a reasonable statement to make... I mean... I really don't know. It's not only incredible insensitive but incredibly offensive a remark to make.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was rushed, but my point was to show that people read the wiki, if you leave out important details then two people will have watched/read two different films. The other minute stuff doesn't matter, but the fact that we are discussing what happens to be rape when it could be anything else, and what I am arguing for is not on the grounds of rape but on the grounds of a film plot point is which being radically revised, reveals your understanding, your stance, and your insulting and degrading comment towards me on the matter. An upright "semi-retired" Wikipedian who bemoans the lack of respect and so on he recieves.

It simply comes down to this, do you remove details that are unnecessary to understand the film, or remove details even more so that thy change and detriment the plot and understanding of film in a bid for mass concision while angrily dieing inside when others try to point this out twice and use one sentence agreements of support to back up your whole swathes of text from known Ownership-article-issued users? Darkwarrioblake has chosen the latter. Oh and I know MisterShiney only agreed on sexual assault, and I replied, what is your point?--JTBX (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Inglourious Basterds is a good example of my argument, and is rated GA.E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial is another example, though it violates standard policy, exceptions can be made.--JTBX (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the exact same problem that occurred in the above discussion where you do not read the comments being made or understand the guidelines that are in place. You say that by not explicitly saying sexual assault (despite, after all this time, still not being able to prove that such an assault takes place beyond your say so), that someone who reads this plot and someone who watches the film are watching two different films. That is ...well I can't use the words I need to, to describe what that opinion is. Two different films? Because those events are ever referenced again in the entire film? Because they alter the understanding that if he is getting the crap kicked out of him or being getting the crap beaten out of him and then having a penis thrust in his face that, that alters the rest of the film? That any of the later events described in the plot are altered by it? No. No it doesn't. It's a bald-faced lie. If your complaint was about the sexual assault you could have just added that and/or discussed it. That said, sexual assault was not your only edit and was not the purpose of the discussion or revert, it was the addition of old, replaced, poorer content and fluff like the boarding house.


 * Your attempts to undermine my and Jacobite's positions by accusing us of being in cahoots and myself of having ownership issues when I'm not the only person who worked on the plot are vein attempts to strengthen your weak position, it's the first and last resort of the editor who doesn't have a leg to stand on. And you haven't explained what Inglorious Basterds or E.T. say, but other articles doing something wrong is not an excuse to perpetuate it. And Inglorious Basterds now and Inglorious Basterds when it passed GA are not the same plot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * First, I take the accusation that "I haven't seen the movie" very wrongly. I've seen this film many many times.
 * Second, remember that the plot summary is only used to support the rest of the article, which is why it is a summary and meant to be concise. Certain details, if not discussed at any depth in terms of filming or reception, are extraneous if the film is still understood without those details. For example, the film never explicitly states that Boggs sexually assaulted Andy. It is heavily implied, yes, but there's room for error (to me, it's implied that Andy never relented under their beatings, and ergo was never "sexually" assaulted.  But importantly, this is a plot aspect that's related to the guards' preferrential treatment of Andy for his accounting skills, not because of the theme of violence/rape in prisons, and this isn't discussed at all in sources. So its an extraneous detail.
 * The plot as it was was appropriately trimmed to the core elements of the story to be cohesive. The recent changes aren't helpful. --M ASEM (t) 19:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * JTBX's ridiculous accusations aside, I am in favor of maintaining the previous long-standing consensus. I agree with the comments made above by Darkwarriorblake and Masem.  As it happens, I have seen this film many times. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  23:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This conversation still going? Plot is fine the way it is. Yeah, maybe some points need a little clarification, but if people want them clarified then don't be lazy and go watch the bloody film! Lol. Point of these summaries is to SUMMARISE! Provide an overview. Not a minute by minute recollection. Yes I made a few edits and included a bit more, yeah they were removed, I understand why on reflection. This is one of my favourite movies of all time and quite frankly, this plot does it justice. Giving enough to let you know what happens, and leaving enough out so that when and if you watch the film, a few surprises pop up. At the end of the day JTBX you have made your suggestions, they have been do discussed and found not to be needed. Your input has been appreciated. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I see we look forward to working with you again in the future. MisterShiney ( Come say hi ) 00:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I seriously do not understand this logic. I mean its like me arguing that there are clouds in the sky and others making arguments against it, leading me in circles and saying "we appreciate your input, goodbye". What is that? I do not respectfully believe that the above editors understand the difference between what extraneous details are and what major plot points are.--JTBX (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly who has to tell you the details are extraneous and the major plot points are covered before you will believe it? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "we appreciate your input, goodbye" is a way of me trying to iterate that its not personal, but we are trying to be nice because you are making constructive suggestions. But the way you are going about it now is being disruptive. So you now need to stop.

So come on. Everyone sit down, and have a fresh baked brownie. MisterShiney ( Come say hi ) 15:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You raised an issue. ✔
 * It was disputed. ✔
 * It was discussed. ✔
 * Numerous editors agreed the changes were not needed. ✔
 * You need to Let it go. Otherwise every edit you now make on this article, and maybe others, will be questioned and quired. A Good Faith Edit or not.

JTBX attempt to cut back extra plot details per above discussion
JTBX, now flipping the other way and trimming out anything that seems extraneous, you're bordering on being purposely disruptive because you can't get your way here. Present your case for why you want to include certain plot details in this article, and we'll come to consensus on that but the way you're editing this now is probably within 3RR restrictions. --M ASEM (t) 04:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I was about to add that since my reasoning is not being followed, I will have to religiously convert and follow the reasoning here, so to try and follow the users line of reasoning above I edited the plot how you want it and guess what, it still makes sense to read. Isn't this fun? or more like a wake up call. Masem, I already laid out my line of reasoning above, and if you or any others want the details I cut back in, present your line of reasoning too.--JTBX (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And you will be blocked if you continue editing like that. The details included in the present version of the plot have been hashed by several editors to the more core to understand the work. If you plan to fight it by edit warring you will be blocked. --M ASEM (t) 04:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're on your FIFTH revert in 24 hours JTBX so do not tell Masem that it does not qualify for a 3RR warning, it also qualifiers for an Edit Warring warning. The article is developed out of a consensus, you're not getting your way so you are being difficult about it. Revert a sixth time and I'll request you be blocked so you can have time to think about how consensus works. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion should be closed. We can no longer assume good faith with JTBX as he has made it very clear that he intends to disrupt the article.  It is also clear that his intention was never article improvement in the first place, his stated intention was to expose his fellow editors as "hypocrites".  I do not see any way to move forward constructively. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  13:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If you look on his talk page, he has also removed warnings from "Angry Editors" and consistently ignores/disrupts edits. It's obvious he has no intention on changing/being constructive in his edits on this article. MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 13:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion resumed
Since I tried to work with you people continously and cut out information that is considered extraneous which is now not accepted, then I will simply revert to my original position. I made an edit just now mostly for writing style in the plot, one of the many issues I raised which is being ignored by three or more apparently adult and sane editors for so long. --JTBX (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You made no effort to work with anyone, you've been confrontational, insulting, offensive, derogatory, and over the last few hours with Masem and MisterShiney, deliberately disruptive. You've edit warred, you're on your 8th revert of the last 24 hours because YES, restoring even a part of that same content is a revert, you've removed warnings, you've fought with other editors, you have ignored consensus and when ALL of the editors above tell you are wrong and ask to end the discussion you started a NEW ONE. Do not continue to try and make people think that you are the victim in this JTBX, you had no interest in working with anyone, you wanted your way and when you couldn't have it, you started vandalising the article against consensus out of immature spite, and you have accused every single editor opposing you of underhanded motives and tactics. Your behavior months ago was bad, and even then people worked with you to keep SOME of the content you were supplying, but it wasn't enough and you hadn't gotten your way enough and now your behavior has become completely unacceptable, and I will pursue any available methods to make sure that your actions are noticed by the appropriate people. Oh and its 9 reverts now, you did another edit restoring another piece of your preferred content.


 * As for your edits, I have undone most of them because they are, even in reduced number, the same edits as before and I have explained each one below. I kept two edits.


 * whose parole application is continously rejected.
 * Continuously is spelled wrong for a start. No explanation for why this is important. As usual.


 * " Norton places Andy in solitary confinement and has" -> "He places Andy in solitary confinement and and has"
 * Somehow you added a double and, and removed the identifier of Norton for no reason.


 * Other extraneous words, "After serving 40 years Red receives parole" -> "After serving 40 years Red eventually receives parole."
 * So AFTER serving 40 years, he eventually some point after the 40 year mark receives parole? So could be 2-3 years after serving 40 years by that pharsing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Red eventually recieves parole because he is continously rejected which is why I added that at the start, so it flows correctly when reading the end. As for your other criticisms they are an extreme form of looking for error where there is none, do not be so pedantic about it, they are simple spelling mistakes, as I am editing it, it would help that users don't just jump in and start reverting. I never once accused you of spelling in your horrible rants towards me. I moved the sentence regarding Hdaley and Bogs to the bottom of the paragraph about Hadley because it makes more sense that way, I didn't even change anything substantial and you still reverted it. --JTBX (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your 9th or 10th revert. I have now reported you to AIV because you clearly will not stop. Him being constantly reject for parole and receiving parole do not correlate into meaningful information in the scope of the plot, there is no reason that the content on Boggs makes more sense there than where it was, again an item of information that was not complained about. You are just trying to push an agenda and you refuse to discontinue despite repeated edit warring and 3RR warnings. The edits you make remain the same even if you have reduced the quantity thereof, hence they remain disputed and in violation of the outcome of this discussion. Even so, again despite your attitude I kept some of your content, again, it just wasn't enough for you. You also restored the double "and" in your clear full revert. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding I thought you were against this so I got rid of it, btw I didnt revert anything, I actually got rid of the parole bit until we can discuss it, see for yourself. Go on, report me, I'm waiting on it. Its obvious from yours and the others behaviour that you have not, as I repeat, read any of my arguments or looked at the plots side by side, instead reverting anything I do and then threatening me. --JTBX (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're accusing multiple editors again of being wrong JTBX, it really is not getting through to you at all. And I was against "Andrew 'Andy' Dufrense". We don't need to higlight a short version of his name, just pick one, that was the problem, that was STATED to be hte problem, again you just do not get anything being said to you, nor understand why after 9 reverts you are receiving 3RR warnings. It's bizarre. And i don't want to discuss parole with you, it won't go anywhere, this has eaten up literally HOURS of my time over the last day when I have other things I need to do. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant are you against names highlighted or not because I do not care about that, I removed it for Red because I thought you wanted it removed. Just now I added in a comparison to Brooks without using halfway house, though I still think it would be better to include that because they live in the same one, if Brooks lived in a different house and Red in the other it doesn't matter, but precisely because their lives are so mirrored it needs a mention-the difference being Red admits he finds hop at the end. There. What do you think about it now? --JTBX (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The "disruption" was my decision to go with the above consensus that the film article needs no extra details, why can't you understand, which is why I removed them and left a very simplified plot, like American Beauty (film). But that was my point, when you do it its fine, if I do it its disruptive. There really isn't a difference. --JTBX (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The disruption saw you edit warring with two editors, you're a disruptive editor and unwilling to listen to others. How do you not get that now, on your 11th revert of the day, trying still to get that information about Brooks in there which is THEMATIC and not PLOT, that you are in the wrong? I am not going to explain to you, for a 4th or 5th time, why the information does not belong because speaking to you is like trying to redirect wind by waving at it. It all comes back to things you think are important, but everyone else has said isn't.


 * But everyone else is wrong. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok here goes, paragraph by paragraph: 1. Andy quickly befriends contraband smuggler Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding- '''we have a condensed name for Andy, so should we have it for Red? I leave this to you.''' Andy works in the prison laundry, but is regularly assaulted by "the Sisters" and their leader Bogs (Mark Rolston) - we don't see him be sexually assaulted true, but its so obvious he is. Fine, I'll leave it, but it should be implied that the Sisters traget him, how about "Andy is targeted by the homosexual Sisters" or something?

2. In this paragraph, the second sentence should be placed at the bottom because after Andy gives finance advice to Hadley he is then sought soon after by everyone else and gains Norton's interest, compare the following two, the second is mine:

In 1949, Andy overhears the brutal chief guard Byron Hadley (Clancy Brown) complaining about taxes on a forthcoming inheritance, and informs him about a financial loophole. After another vicious assault by the Sisters nearly kills Andy, Bogs is beaten and crippled by Hadley. Bogs is sent to another prison and Andy is not attacked again. Warden Samuel Norton (Bob Gunton) meets with Andy and reassigns him to the prison library, to assist elderly inmate Brooks Hatlen (James Whitmore); a pretext for Andy to manage financial duties for the prison. His advice and expertise are soon sought by other guards at Shawshank and from nearby prisons. Andy begins writing weekly letters to the state government for funds to improve the decrepit library.

In 1949, Andy overhears the brutal chief guard Byron Hadley (Clancy Brown) complaining about taxes on a forthcoming inheritance, and informs him about a financial loophole. Warden Samuel Norton (Bob Gunton) meets with Andy and reassigns him to the prison library, to assist elderly inmate Brooks Hatlen (James Whitmore); a pretext for Andy to manage financial duties for the prison. His advice and expertise are soon sought by other guards at Shawshank and from nearby prisons. Andy begins writing weekly letters to the state government for funds to improve the decrepit library. After another vicious assault by the Sisters nearly kills Andy, Bogs is beaten and crippled by Hadley. Bogs is sent to another prison and Andy is not attacked again.

3. Fine, dont include halfway house, but I think the comparison should be made.

4. no problems with this paragraph

5. My addition: The next day at roll call, Andy's cell is empty. Enraged, Norton throws one of Andy's rocks at the poster of Raquel Welch hanging on the wall. The rock tears through the poster, revealing a tunnel that Andy had dug with his rock hammer over the previous two decades. The previous night, Andy escaped through the tunnel and the prison's sewage pipe with Norton's ledger and suit, containing details of the money laundering. While guards search for him the following morning, Andy, posing as Randall Stephens, visits several banks to withdraw the laundered money. Finally, he sends the ledger and evidence of the corruption and murders at Shawshank to a local newspaper. The police arrive at Shawshank and take Hadley into custody, but Norton commits suicide to avoid arrest.

6. My proposed addition because you didn't want to include halfway house After serving 40 years Red receives parole. Like Brooks, he struggles to adapt to life outside prison and fears he never will. Remembering his promise to Andy, he visits Buxton and finds a cache containing money and a letter, asking him to come to Zihuatanejo. Red violates his parole and travels to Fort Hancock, Texas to cross the border to Mexico, admitting he finally feels hope. On a beach in Zihuatanejo, he finds Andy, and the two friends are happily reunited.

What about now? --JTBX (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping someone else would reply as I really do not want to be anywhere near this again. I am going to state right now that anything I write below is not an endorsement, it is my opinion alone not of other editors.


 * 1) As I have said, we didn't need Andrew 'Andy' Dufresne, because its two versions of the same name, Red on the other hand is a nickname and the characters common name used for the majority of the film. We could probably drop the 'Boyd'. It is not appropriate to call the Sisters homosexual, they were prison gay.
 * 2) The paragraph as is is the actual order of events and makes it clear that Hadley's actions follow Andy's financial advice, they do not follow Norton's overt involvement and his increased financial prison duties.
 * 3) Not in the plot section it shouldn't.
 * 4) The suit is a trivial detail, whether he took a suit or brokea window and stole one or took one off a washing line is not important. That he is wearing a suit is not important, it can be assumed he did not visit the banks in his prison jumpsuit.
 * 5) (see 3) The comparison is already made, it is stated that Brooks struggles to adapt to life after 50 years and commits suicide, it is stated that Red struggles to adapt to life after 40 years. It is unnecessary to make this any more prominent than it already clearly is except to set up the end twist where it implies for the viewer (and the viewer alone) that he might kill himself when the reality is he wasn't going to because he is really looking at the compass.
 * These all sound like the same points already discussed a dozen times. I see no problem with dropping the 'Boyd' though the length of his name is not an issue as stated, it was because the plot had Andrew 'Andy' Dufresne which was ridiculous, and, if others agree, adding a one word description of the Sisters if it will just end this endless discussion. But homosexual is not the appropriate word. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "These all sound like the same points already discussed a dozen times." That is exactly what I was thinking, Dwb, which is why I did not respond.  Going over all this again is tedious.  "Bull queer" is the phrase used by Red in the film, so it seems that is what we should use.  I agree with everything else you said.  I would like to see this brought to a swift conclusion. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  02:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I added quotation marks around the phrase "bull queer" as that makes it clearer that phrase is used in the film. I think that without the quotation marks the phrase looks like a technical term that will be defined in the "Prison Sexuality" article.- Elwin-bennington (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I added quotation marks around the phrase "bull queer" as that makes it clearer that phrase is used in the film. I think that without the quotation marks the phrase looks like a technical term that will be defined in the "Prison Sexuality" article.- Elwin-bennington (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all your points Dark apart from 2, I still think the sentence should be at the bottom of the paragraph, it then flows more correctly and reflects what happens in the film: Andy gives advice to Hadley> is sought out by other guards> is sought out by Norton and reputation increases> is saved after another assault by the sisters, what do you think?--JTBX (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is the last comment on the matter from me because I am exhausted responding to the same thing said different ways. Putting the sentence last does not reflect what happens in the film, what is there now reflects what happens in the film. Andy offers advice, he gets beaten, Hadley beats Boggs, Andy's cell gets inspected by Norton, Andy is moved to the library, he starts offering financial advice to other people and managing prison financial duties. Changing it does not make it flow more correctly, it flows correctly. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Andy offers advice and is sought out afterwards, the Norton "promotes" him and eventually when the Sisters attack him again Bogs is beaten. That is actualyl how it goes in the film. It really hurts that someone who cannot remeber what happens in the film is allowed to edit and get away with it, and here I am trying to actually do something after watching these films, what is the point?

This still being discussed?? Dude you are just putting the same points across in a different way!! I mean come on!! MisterShiney ( Come say hi ) 19:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You people really are not reading what I wrote above are you? I conceeded every single point of dark's, I basically let him get away with it. The only thing I said is that a sentence should be moved. Thats it, a sentence, because it actually follows what happens inthe film and reads better. And he is not having it. He won't have a sentence be moved. --JTBX (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding to both comments. You 'let me get away with it' implies you have learned absolutely nothing from this exchange, that we are all still wrong, you're just letting us get away with it. As for the other remark, I've got the film on RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME right now. It LITERALLY GOES "roof scene", "Prison yard scene", "scraping wall scene", "cinema scene with Gilda playing", "Another attack", "Boggs removed from solitary and beaten". Norton doesn't meet with him for four scenes after this. Perhaps in between letting me get away with things you should get around to watching the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is now closed and we have reached agreement, I explained myself on Darkwarriorblakes page. I was wrong on several plot details and dark explained himself fully. --JTBX (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Phil. Now link
From what I can tell of the Philoshopy Now link, this appears to be completely valid critical commentary on the film. Yes, it's not a film critic, but we have no requirements that only film critics can be used to discuss a film (case in point, Memento is praised by medical experts about the depiction of amnesia, and Michael Bay's Armageddon has commentary on the poor science about the film. So there's zero case for removing the citation. --M ASEM  (t) 05:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "So there's zero case for removing the citation. "

Did you notice that that my second edit left the praise you insisted on in place while correctly not calling it critical acclaim?

How is the opinion of someone who is not a film critic is "critical acclaim"? Calling it such deliberately mischaracterises the reference. Re: your cases in point, notice that you say Memento was "praised by" medical experts and that Armageddon "has commentary", you seem to admit that such comments are not "critical acclaim".

Japanscot (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Critical Acclaim" does not require boda fide "critics". Just people with subject material expertise to make evaluations of it. --M ASEM  (t) 03:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Critical acclaim does not need critics" Says who? You? The manual of style calls for professional film critics in the first instance, and that relevant experts may be cited. It does not say that non-critic statements must be called "critical acclaim".

There is no need to risk misleading the reader when the praise can stay in and be called what it is; praise.

Choose a wording (which has fewer words) that tells the reader that the praise came from a writer for a philosophy magazine, not a film critic.
 * Example, "The film was praised by (Writername in) Philosophy Now magazine for its (full) depiction of existentialist ideas"

16 words instead of 20, no misleading of the reader by calling praise by a philosophy writer "critical acclaim". (You might want to add Sartre.) No real need to mention the writer name, he doesn't seem to be notable, but the magazine itself has a wiki page we can link to.

A representative example of critical acclaim in a film article would be '"this is a good film", says reliable source film critic.' "This is a good exposition of a specialist field for the lay person." is a representative example of relevant field expert praise, such as that you mentioned for Memento. It should be described as such. We can do so easily, without sacrificing any intelligibility.

Re: your comparison to the page for Memento These statements are discussed in a distinct section titled "Scientific response". The section does not refer to critical acclaim by experts in related real-life fields. There is no mention of "critical acclaim" by non-movie critics, at all. Regarding Armageddon, there is again a distinct section titled Scientific accuracy. Such statements again are very clearly separated from references to statements by film critics.

The Memento and Armageddon articles are good examples of how to make reference to positive (or negative) statements and avoid misleading readers into thinking that movie critics made the statements. Japanscot (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Allen Green
During the start of the subtitles, zooming out and leaving Andy and Red on the beach, the line "In memory of Allen Green" is seen, al though I can find no information on this matter on the page. Anyone able to add this piece of info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.116.96 (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

4 years later I think the movie deserves an answer to this question, its a shame noone knows anything about Allen Greene! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.167.230 (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"greatest movies" line
There's a line in the lead referring to this movie as "now widely considered one of the greatest films of all time." I happen to really like this movie myself, but with no references and nothing in the article besides an IMDB rating, I don't see this as justified. (The only other source, AFI's 2007 top films ranking, obviously does not qualify it as "widely".) If there are some sources out there to justify this, great. But if not, the line needs to go. 8bitW (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have edited the sentence. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 22:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure if simply taking the word "widely" out really suffices for the long run, but I think it's okay for now. On a side note, I found an additional source, which places it at 4 out of 100: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/best-hollywood-movies-all-time-818512/item/citizen-kane-hollywoods-100-favorite-818350
 * Let's see if we can find a few more. 8bitW (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Thanks for that! — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 08:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of IMDb's Top 250 poll

 * The whole "vote-stacking" thing is entirely unfounded. For the amount of people who are possibly up-voting it unfairly, and "unreliably", there are just as many giving it a 0% in return in attempt to degrade its' perfection. We don't give credence to reviews that give such blatantly low ratings, at least not in our heads, because that's simply just not fair for a movie of this caliber. But why are we giving zero credence to those who give it perfect ratings? Are we really forced to believe that a majority of those votes are sock accounts? I mean, that's what this all boils down to, doesn't it? Because someone giving it a 10/10 certainly isn't "unreliable." The only "unreliable" reviews are the ones who choose the lowest score possible. Go ahead and look at the votes sometime, they're absolutely there, raving on about "this isn't the best movie ever!" BUT, on the otherhand I've read and met SO SO SO many more people's absolute perfect love for this movie -- not just in those comments, but in other parts of the internet, real life, and beyond. If anything, holding such a spot on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes gives it more credence than anyone could ever ask for. We all know the internet is a very harsh place -- if something isn't absolutely deserving of having such a ranking as the GREATEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME on IMDB for what's probably over a decade by now, it'd have been absolutely and totally dethroned by now. For a DECADE!!! It's my favorite movie of all time, and I've been checking that poll for the last 8-9 years myself. I would be surprised if it ever fluctuated with The Godfather once Shawshank took its' throne, seeing as how my first reading of the Top #250 was in 2006. Also, The Rotten Tomatoes user rating system has also given the movie a current rating of 98% out of 100%, which has fluctuated between 98 and 99% for for roughly the last half-decade. It is also one of the website's most voted on movies, indicating an almost perfect response from the nearly 1 million people who left a review, tying with The Godfather, and has more votes, to boot.

Also, I feel I should add, seeing it as a anti-inclusion defense below, that this movie isn't some millennial-attraction, like he/she's example of Fight Club. This is a movie about prison in the 50s-70s, and produced when most millennials reviewing it today were still in diapers. There isn't some giant mainstream Facebook force driving the love for this movie. It's seeing this movie for the first time on Netflix, having no one told you about it, and being moved to tears of joy that even the most hardened men would feel. It's seeing this movie and feeling completely and utterly inspired by the absolute highest form human fortitude and testament ever produced on film. The concept of hope, being perhaps one of most underrated of human emotions, and most certainly one of the most dismal, is truly ingrained into the viewer through, in my opinion, the most powerful and rewarding pieces of cinema in human history. It shows hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and we need to know as human beings that good things never die.Infoman182 (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Infoman182 (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel that in the 'Reception' section, a note should be made that this film is the highest rated film on IMDb with over 530,000 user votes, and an overall score of 9.2/10. That seems to speak well enough in and of itself of the non-critic reception that people had to this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.178.8 (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The hidden comment states: "WP:MOSFILM does not allow IMDb Top 250 or other similar internet polls: it is not an actual critics poll and subject to vote stacking." The revelant section at WP:MOSFILM is at Manual of Style (film). Because the IMDb 250 poll is unreliable, it does not belong in the article. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Cunard. A list that has Inception as the fourth best film of all time does not have a healthy gauge for including in articles. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Disqualifying a poll by the fact that a certain movie is included in it sounds like very debatable logic to me. While it is difficult to draw a line and therefore to argue with the wikipedia policy on internet polls, it is a remarkable achievement for The Shawshank Redemption to be atop the IMDb Top 250 for so long. It's unlikely that it has achieved this through some manipulative scheme. Besides, the effect that gets a new movie ranked very high can be expected to fade away after a while. IMHO it's worth noting this achievement. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As a consideration of another approach, we can use secondary sources (not IMDB itself) that TSR has been ranked high on the user polls at IMDB for several years (eg, ,  ) We don't have to give credibility to that fact ourselves as long as we point out that it is crowdsourcing as the Time article above describes. --M ASEM (t) 17:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While I'm not a fan of mentioning fan polls, if it's place in IMDb's poll is mentioned enough by sources, it should be mentioned here. But I think the three provided are more about the list itself than the movie; what would be better is someone talking about the movie and referencing IMDb in the article. Capt. Colonel (edits) 21:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In that aspect, if you look at the Time article, and its likely a theme that can be followed elsewhere, its the idea that the film has found to be a favorite on user-conducted polls at various sites (Zagat, IMDB) irrespective of the user-space behind the poll. The fact "TSR is on the top of the IMDB" is not the fact of interest to show, but that "TSR often ranks highly on several user-based movie lists including IMDB". --M ASEM (t) 21:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I get the impression that some seem have some kind of personal issues with any mention of IMDB in this article. While I completely understand why the top 250 is not regarded as trustworthy, there is no denying that being in the top spot for this long is remarkable and should be mentioned. I added a very credible reference but it was still regarded as insufficient. It states At any rate, "Shawshank" is 16 years old and apparently has received more votes than just about any other top 250 movie which means its #1 rating can not be considered a fluke. http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2011/02/the-shawshank-greatness.html Bigar (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Shawshank Redemption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101229124115/http://www.goldenglobes.org:80/browse/year/1994 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1994

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Great film of the 1990s?
Many people consider it one of the best of ALL TIME. Not just in website lists, which of course wikipedia doesn't consider viable, but many movie critics consider it one of the best of all time. Plus many wikipedia users agree with me. Mods stop changing it back to 1990s please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.240.73 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the numerous discussions of this matter in the past. Nothing has changed since then.  Your opinion is beside the point, and the opinions of critics are dealt with in the body of the article.  Please stop removing the hidden text in the lede.  Thank you. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  16:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Shawshank tree
If someone with more knowledge about this film is interested, I started Shawshank tree. It could use some expanding.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Does it really need its own article? A redirect to the film, and a subsection in this, sure, given its history, but not a whole separate article... --M ASEM (t) 19:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Coverage seems significant enough to warrant own but small article. CNN and BBC picked up its death. NPR covered it significantly back in 2011. I can look for more. (I see TMZ covered the 2011 incident too). Apparently it has a large fan appeal is a tourist attraction.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also check out the dozens of news articles on it .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Can the trees continued ability to live really be attributed to "rally groups" and inspection by anybody? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.176.114 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Bogs Diamond
There seems to be confusion over the spelling of the character's name. To avoid any conflict, it's "Bogs Diamond" as seen here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 13:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for me. My apologies. I searched both on the Internet and Boggs was the only one that came up with shawshank references when searched alone. Seems we arnt the only one that is confused. There are other sources that also spell it with a double g. MisterShiney    ✉    13:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it was Boggs too tbh, so double checked the credits. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just re-played my VHS copy and the cast list reads Bogs Diamond –&#32;

There seems to be a mistake involving what happened to Bogs after he was beaten severely by Hadley. The plot says that he was transferred to another prison which wasn't the case. He was actually transferred to a minimum security hospital upstate. And it also never says that he was actually paralyzed after Hadley had beaten him to that degree. Lastly, it never says that 'The Sisters' never attacked Andy again out of fear after Bogs got paralyzed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.3.192 (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2017

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the "see also" addition below is what they were suggesting. But, as I said in response, Shawshank is not mentioned on that page, so the addition is irrelevant. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  16:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Box office disappointment?
I doubt the claim in the introduction that the film was a box office disappointmeent. How can that be when the film earned more than twice as much at the box than it cost (except if the producers had exaggerated expectations)? --Maxl (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, and would have no objection if you removed it. Anyway, the lede shouldn't make claims that are not elaborated on in the body of the article.  The article doesn't even have a box office subsection, so, at this point, the claim is unverified. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  13:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I just found an article and edited to explain. Its first wide-theater release it only made around $12M, and at the time was considered a disappointment.
 * And we do have a box office section, just not explicitly called out (its the first part of the Reception section). --M ASEM (t) 14:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case the phrase in the introduction is misleading as it does not say anything abeout the 12 million of a first release. --Maxl (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already changed the intro to establish that the disappointment was at release, not overall. --M ASEM (t) 15:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Buddy film
The film centres on the friendship between the two leads, and it's often included in 'best of' lists of buddy films. I provided a reliable source that says it's a buddy drama film. It's also listed on our article Buddy film, as the only example in the Drama section. Jim Michael (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is also listed as a buddy film here and here. One wonders if there is a way to incorporate what you want without using the phrase "buddy drama film", which to me sounds awkward. AndrewOne (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a buddy film. The close friendship between the two leads is central to the film. However, some editors of this article deny that it's a buddy film, or say that it's of little relevance. Is there a better place than the lead to add it to the article? Jim Michael (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources for future use
Putting sources here for me (or others) to use, time this article got promoted:
 * https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/09/shawshank-redemption-anniversary-story
 * http://www.ifc.com/2014/05/the-shawshank-redemption-trivia
 * http://www.thedailybeast.com/20-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-shawshank-redemption
 * http://www.npr.org/2011/08/04/138986482/on-location-mansfield-ohios-shawshank-industry
 * http://www.cracked.com/article_23918_6-behind-scenes-disputes-that-almost-killed-huge-movies.html
 * http://www.indiewire.com/2014/11/shawshank-secrets-revealed-frank-darabont-tim-robbins-and-morgan-freeman-reveal-all-at-20th-anniversary-screening-67678/
 * http://www.oscars.org/news/20th-anniversary-screening-shawshank-redemption-frank-darabont-morgan-freeman-and-tim-robbins
 * http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/films/20-things-you-probably-didn-t-know-about-the-shawshank-redemption
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rTKGPEIoRxoC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=shawshank+redemption+behind+the+scenes&source=bl&ots=X6F4io2Nxy&sig=ronrRi5bTUNexH4nq7Y6uXevZXA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjG3YSW0JbWAhWDvRQKHaEVDag4KBDoAQhLMAY#v=onepage&q=shawshank%20redemption%20behind%20the%20scenes&f=false
 * http://www.comedycentral.co.uk/nostalgia/pictures/behindthescenes-pictures-from-iconic-90s-films
 * https://www.today.com/popculture/shawshank-redemption-still-powerful-10-years-later-wbna6232739
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2004/09/08/the_shawshank_redemption_2004_dvd_review.shtml
 * http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shawshank-redemption-reunion-stars-share-750200
 * http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20141028-inside-the-haunted-prison-of-the-shawshank-redemption
 * http://www.hollywood.com/movies/facts-you-never-knew-about-the-shawshank-redemption-60277116/
 * http://mashable.com/2017/02/14/whats-the-difference-shawshank-redemption/#eTRavZb7eaqk
 * http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-shawshank-redemption-1994
 * http://www.businessinsider.com/actors-from-shawshank-redemption-residual-pay-2014-6?IR=T Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Consider making citation date formats consistent
For those working on making this a GA or FA, consider making the citation date formats consistent. Right now there is a mix of MMMM DD, YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Distributor
, this is the place for discussion, not just reverting edits repeatedly. It's a featured article, not a place for you to impose your will by repetitiveness. The infobox is for the original release, be it video or theatrical. Warner Bros had no stake in it, they purchased Castle Rock in 1996 well after the original theatrical release, and it has no reason to be included in the infobox. That logic would mean if Warner bros sell Castle Rock to Sony nad Sony release a DVD of The Shawshank Redemption that Sony should go in as distributor as well. It's not meant to be there and you should have accepted that from the reasoned summary I gave instead of just repeatedly reinserting it with new sources that say the same thing, that it had nothing to do with the original theatrical release. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I would like to point out in the article that the movie rights now belong to Warner Bros. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Warner Bros is mentioned multiple times in the article if you read it. I've added a separate line that they own it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Darkwarriorblake. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 01:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

'Pious and strict' 'considered by many'
I suppose this is the last step before admins may come in to stop a delayed edit war. 1. Norton is not some catholic schoolteacher, the source listed compares him to Satan. Reverting this with 'last correct version' as the edit summary is disruptive & disrespectful to the user, TheOldJacobite. For the latter, even though it counts as weasel wording, adding 'by many' to me is better than stating it without, as if though everyone or the important majority considers it the greatest of all time. With 'by many', it's all justified by the later sections like legacy, accolades, lasting reception, etc. Barely made one (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I went back and looked at the edit history, because I honestly could not remember making these edits. Looking at the history, I see that this was carelessness on my part.  My intention was to revert the anon edit and I didn't pay enough attention to what I was doing.  My apologies.  Feel free to restore your changes. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 18:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Have been rather preoccupied but ok, thanks for the consideration. Barely made one (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Dufresne innocence and other edits
SunCrow keeps attempting to insert at all mentions that Andy is innocent. It is never explicitly said that he is guilty but whether he is or isn't, the film and I believe also the novella are ambiguous on it, and things are presented as in the film. It is also a featured article, it's content has been reviewed multiple times, and the edits to the lede and repeated attempts to insert a single bias POV are not appropriate. This line exists in the plot, "A year later, Tommy reveals to Red and Andy that his cellmate at another prison had claimed responsibility for the murders for which Andy was convicted. Andy approaches Norton with this information, but Norton refuses to listen and sends him back to solitary confinement when he mentions the money laundering." Attempts to slant the article fail WP:NPOV. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Character naming inconsistency
Throughout the article, inmates are referred to, on second and subsequent mentions, by their forenames/nicknames, but prison staff by surnames. That is inconsistent, and suggests an unencyclopaedic identification with some characters and distancing from others. Kevin McE (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe it's just WP:COMMONNAME. People will recognise Red not Redding, Andy and Dufresne can go either way, Byron Hadley is always Hadley and Warden Norton as Norton. But now you mention it the film probably did it to humanize the main inmates and not the staff. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is to do with titling articles, not referring to characters in fictional plot summaries. Kevin McE (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is a section on articles for people and the common name to use as people would know them. I mean others can input but I think referring to someone famously known as Red as Redding doesn't work any more than referring to the warden as Samuel does. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)