Talk:Trial film
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | Daily page views
|
 | This article is ratedList-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This material had been inAnatomy of a Murder. I worked hard on it and think it could be of some use. It was edited out (partially at my suggestion). Nevertheless, it was too good (IMHO) to just leave on the cutting room floor. There is the germ of a good idea, but it will need more work.
I know nothing about starting a new article (this is a first time for me). Feel free to change the title and fix it up.
Thank you.7&6=thirteen (talk)04:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Stan[reply]
either an Englisn or English language picture. Seems to meNOT.Carptrash (talk)16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Best7&6=thirteen (talk)00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]
I note that we've now gotten a note that says that we have NPOV on the military films. At the top, we were told that the piece "reads like a review." There seems to be some conflicting sentiment here. Either way you've got us at doing something wrong.
One of the real problems with WIKI is exemplified by this basic conflict. You may have a point, but it would seem likely that you don't both have a point.
It a very easy to rip up material and cite "the rules" as though its not YOUR decision.
However, it would be much more helpful if you made a positive contribution to the article, which actually does have some uses and some merit to its observations. It would be better to help us improve the article, rather than to simply excise it or delete it.
It's easy to put out a candle, but much harder to build a fire.
That's my thought for the day. Best regards to you.7&6=thirteen (talk)00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]
Why is this movie listed twice, the second time in a list of military trial movies that is preceded by an explanation that they may have been omitted from the main list because of their nature?Paths of Glory is indeed on the first list. If it is going to be included twice, it ought to have the military trial movies explanatory paragraph changed so that it does not directly contradict itself. --12.217.237.175 (talk)20:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't Miracle on 34th Street count as a trial movie?PennsylvaniaPatriot (talk)06:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following was just removed:
"The most comprehensive listing of legally-themed movies appears at theThe George Washington University Law School movie list:[1]."
The list did exist. I don't know if it was moved, or if it might still exist atInternet archive or somewhere like that. It is worth salvaging. This is a situation of presumedWP:linkrot.7&6=thirteen (☎)21:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Picked up and added a citation to Further Reading from the above article.7&6=thirteen (☎)01:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Text and Reference copied fromTrial film toKenneth Ross. See history of former article for a list of contributors.7&6c=thirteen (☎)17:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of all this content was in error. Irestored it here. It belongs in this article, and will aid our readers to navigate the content and find relevant films.7&6=thirteen (☎)15:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right now we have
1 Notable films (in a table)
2 Varieties
3 Other examples
I think this page can be arranged better. Firstly, we should have all of the sets of films in tables, or none of them. Secondly, some of the films listed as "other examples" (e.g.,...And Justice for All,Presumed Innocent,Primal Fear,Runaway Jury,The Judge) are really the quintessential trial films, and should be noted more prominently than military and religious trial films, which are more niche to the genre.BD2412T19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
