Talk:Bridge of Spies (book)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bridge of Spies (book) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Related film

Resolved

– Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kmatterhorn, did you not see the source here that is referenced for the "Related film" section? Since both the book and film share the same name despite the film not actually being based on the book, it is a section worth having to explain to readers what the connection is. Why is this a bad thing? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DiscantX, Flyer22 Reborn: Kmatterhorn is continuing to remove the section. I assume you support the inclusion of the section? The editor plagiarized a History Extra review, just pasting it in, and I reverted this as well. (I actually found it useful and included it in the appropriate way since I had difficulty finding many reviews for the book.) I've issued a final warning to the editor not to do it again. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, he just removed content again. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the removals and saw that the section should be in this article. I've reverted again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported the editor, so let's see action taken before we revert any further. No need to keep repeating this cycle. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the film section helps clarify confusion and points readers in the right direction. It has just enough information to do this. I could see the argument for removing it if the section was longer (this article is, after all, about the book, not the film), but a small section is beneficial. Discant X 01:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related film 2

The source cited says:

Originally released in 1964, Strangers received a new paperback printing this year to tie in to the buzz of the film. The new version includes the cover headline, "The Subject Of The Major Motion Picture Bridge Of Spies." So while Donovan's remembrances were surely reviewed and considered, this book does not claim to have been the source material adapted by the Coens and fellow screenwriter Matt Charman.

It also says:

Editor's Note: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that Bridge of Spies is based on the book Bridge of Spies by Giles Whittell.

Is it credible that this book, published only a few years ago, and with the same title, was not used by the screenwriters? I would say the film was based on the events, and used a number of sources. Is there a definitive source on this? I don't think the source cited is.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the source fine, especially when coupled with the fact that there is zero claim that the film is based on this book. I found a couple of articles that stated this, I recall, but they were high-level and in passing that I doubted that they did their research. In my experience, acquisition of rights to adapt a book into a film is usually reported somewhere, like the trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. The lack of crediting in the film itself is revealing as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]