Talk:The Hustler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Hustler has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 31, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
June 2, 2008Good article reassessmentNot listed
July 8, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
July 20, 2008Good article reassessmentListed
Current status: Good article


GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hustler (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

On the whole, the article is in good shape. It deals with all the major aspects of the film. While its missing distribution info, that isn't an issue for the GA nom (though it should be considered if the primary editors plan to later go for FAC). The biggest thing I noticed as issues with the prose, as noted below. It also has a few minor MoS issues, but nothing super major.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    There are a few places where the article jumps a bit from topic to topic with no transition. For example, in Production, the second paragraph opens with "Paul Newman was originally unavailable to play Fast Eddie...", but nothing in the first paragraph mentions him being considered or desired for the part. After noting someone else was hired, it notes that Newman was freed from his previous obligation and took the part. Was Darin simply fired when Newman became available? There are also a few places where sentences are worded awkwardly, causing problems with flow, such as three paragraphs in a row starting the same way. Has the article been copyedited?
    B. MoS compliance:
    Would also recommend using {{cite book}} for the list of book references
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Prose not fixed and nominator edit warred with the copy editor, preventing it this issue from being full addressed. As prose is an important part of any GA article, and the lack of response concerning a MoS issue, I feel this article is not ready for GA. I strongly urge the nominator to have the article copyedited, and be more receptive to the CE's edits and remarks, before renominating.

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Updated 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you point me toward the specific sentences and paragraphs you're talking about as being awkward? Otto4711 (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost the entire production section, really. It reads very stilted, as if it was put together in bits and pieces rather than one cohesive unit. In the plot, we have four paragraphs in a row starting with "Eddie...", which is visually distracting. The legacy section has similar issues as the production section. The first and fourth paragraphs seems more like review/reception info, while the rest feel like bullet points without the bullets. If you need help finding a copyeditor, let me know.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've switched up the starting words in some of the plot paragraphs to break up the Eddie Eddie Eddie. The production section was put together out of bits and pieces pulled from a number of sources. I'll be adding a bit more to it shortly. Regarding the legacy section, the reason I put some review information there was to illustrate that the film's reputation has persisted. The critical response section focuses on contemporary reviews while the legacy section focuses on more recent reviews to make the point. I could certainly combine the 'unbulleted bullet points' into a single paragraph; the reason I separated them out was the same reason that I separated the awards by type. If you want to sic a copy editor on the article, feel free. I'll continue to work on it as well. Otto4711 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alrighty. I'll see if I can find a copyeditor to give it a once over. Its almost always a god idea to hav a second set of eyes giving it a read over (and will it will be a benefit later if you decide to go for FA later). :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded a bit on the whole Darin situation, which I think smoothes the section a bit as well. Otto4711 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm currently reading the article from the bottom up, and I haven't yet made it past "Notes". According to WP:LAYOUT, the section heading "notes" is for footnotes, or additional commentary on the Wikipedia content. The list of "notes" here seems to me to be more appropriately called "references". The section called "references" should, as a list of books that were used in the article's formation, be called Further reading. I'll continue towards copyediting, on glance the prose looks very good. Does anyone disagree with my assessment of section headings? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are using a form of the Harvard system, with the books "References" being used in "Notes" in short form with just the last name, page number. The headers do need adjusting though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Layout#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions: "Notes" is for footnotes containing source citations or commentary on the main text. "References" is a list of referenced materials (books, websites, etc. cited in the main text). I have been advised repeatedly in other GA nominations that "Notes" should be used for the specific citations (e.g. <ref>Dyer p. 136</ref>) and that "References" should be used for the books used as reference material within the article. Otto4711 (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do whatever you will on this article. I'm no longer willing/able to contribute to it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All righty then, have a pleasant day! Otto4711 (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the ending is wrong[edit]

The wikipedia article states incorrectly:

"Eddie returns to challenge Fats again, putting up his entire $3,000 stake on a single game. He wins game after game, beating Fats so badly that Fats is forced to quit. Bert demands a share of Eddie's winnings and threatens Eddie over the issue, but Eddie, invoking the memory of Sarah, shames Bert into giving up his claim. However, Bert warns Eddie never to walk into a big-time pool hall again"

He does not shame Bert into giving up his claim. Bert is beyond getting shamed. Eddie tells Bert that his boys are going to have to kill him for the money or else he will heal from their beating and come back and kill him (Bert). Bert decides to let him go with the money and warns him never to walk into a big time pool hall again. He finishes by telling Fats that he is a great player and Fats returns the compliment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.143.158 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edited for Television?[edit]

I watched the movie on television on the PBS channel. It appears that what is being played on PBS is an edited version. Maybe this point can be added by somebody into the article. Unless I changed channels or just wasnt paying attention, I really didnt see any scenes where the Bert character attacks or rapes the girl. I dont recall Eddie's speech at the end about Bert's men either letting him go or killing him. I'll have to get a DVD of this movie, and see if there was content edited out, for television. Marc S. Dania Fl. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faustian Pact?[edit]

" Felson sells his soul and betrays the one person who really knows and loves him in a Faustian pact to gain character." A Faustian pact is never undertaken to "gain character," but rather to gain worldly success. Gaining character comes later, when the debt is called in.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthotox (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah and Bert[edit]

There is nothing humiliating in the sexual encounter of Sarah and Bert; in fact it is not filmed at all. I replaced that opinion with the facts: he tries to seduce her, she refuses, then she changes her mind. I think the sexual encounter represents just the step she needs to take to destroy her love for Eddie, to go on her path of self destruction, but it is my opinion, unsourced, so I am not putting it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.173.169.105 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how Bert "sexually assaults her". He does forcibly kiss her, which isn't right. However, she seemingly chooses to have sex with him, although clearly she regrets her decision afterwards. However, to characterize it as "sexual assault"... not sure it is that. I think it's more accurately stated as, "Bert forcibly kisses Sarah, who then asks for a drink. Afterwards, it is clear they have had sex". Isn't that more accurate?Supertheman (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forced kissing and other unwanted contact is sexual assault. oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on jurisdiction, and wasn't the case in many if any at the time the film was made. I concur with Supertheman.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on The Hustler (film). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fats never handles money[edit]

The article claims "... only Minnesota Fats, who never handles money himself ...", which is not true. On multiple occasions Fats throws money on the table when he loses. See this clip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur.Goldberg (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 September 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to The Hustler. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hustler (film) → The Hustler (1961 film) – Due to the existence of The Hustler (1920 film), the main title header The Hustler (film) represents incomplete disambiguation and should redirect to the Hustler#Films dab page. It may be also taken into account that The Hustler (1920 film) is German and its original title is Der Falschspieler which, according to Google Translate, means The Cheater. As a possible point of interest, there is apparently some form of German linguistic or thematic distinction between the use of the same term to describe the protagonist of the 1961 film, who is not portrayed as a cheater, since the 1961 film's German title is Haie der Großstadt which, according to Google Translate, means Big City Sharks. Google translation of The Hustler is given as simply Der Hustler. As another somewhat related disambiguation point, the Hustler#Films dab page also lists 2010's The Hustlers (film), 2019's Hustlers (film) and the redirect Hustlers (2013 film). If consensus skews toward leaving The Hustler (film) as is and moving The Hustler (1920 film) to Der Falschspieler, I would also support such a move. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to The Hustler. The 1961 Paul Newman film is the primary topic. See pageviews. 162 etc. (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Oppose. I am not too fond of partial disambiguation, but this is close to a perfect case for it. The 1961 film is quite important and appears to receive about 175 times as many page views as the 1920 film. The current article on the 1920 film gives almost no evidence that it is notable under WP:NFILM at all. The only reference on that article is a cite to a list in the middle of a sentence in an unrelated book; there is no coverage at all of the actual film in that book. I agree that it might be possible to move this to the plain title, if we don't consider The Hustler (novel) to be a problem. Dekimasuよ! 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having submitted the nomination, I would also support The Hustler (film) → The Hustler, per 162 etc. In addition to the 1920 and 1961 films, there are only six other entries at the Hustler disambiguation page specifically titled "The Hustler", two of which are WP:DABMENTIONS, while among the other four (a stub about the 1959 novel that was the basis for the film, a 1968 album, a 1974 TV episode and a 2021 TV game show that lasted for 19 episodes), none has the historical standing of the classic film. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Hustler I agree this is a pretty obvious primary topic. The film is a classic, the novel it's based on is pretty obscure and there's no evidence the other topics have much long-term notability. If not, this proposal is fine IMO. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Hustler as primary topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Hustler. In this instance a very clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blue Washington was limping attendant[edit]

His article in wikipedia credits him as only "limping attendant" although I believe someone calls him "Henry" -- many Blacks in this movie (like Findley's servants) but not one word is spoken by any Black actor. 1961 USA. 50.230.251.244 (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake LaMotta was bartender but there is more than one bartender[edit]

Jake played "Mack" who "always trusts" Sarah when she's broke -- she asks him, "Don't you trust me, Mack?" and he replied, "Check." 50.230.251.244 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hustler&oldid=1207676965"