Jump to content

Talk:Gone with the Wind (novel)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Today I moved the section "Plot summary" (2010/2011) from the top into chronological order. -P64 2012-01-28.

It begins!

This article has long disappointed me. Having just finished the book, the biggest honour I could do it is fix this article up. My ultimate aim is make it featured article-worthy.

To do:

  • Rewrite plot summary.
  • Rewrite character descriptions.
  • Add stuff. Cite everything.
  • Reorganise to conform to WP:Novels structure standards.
  • Tweak Infobox. (Ironically, I was the one who put it there initially. :P)

Spamguy 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that Wikipedia has entries on TV soap opera characters that are much more fleshed out than these iconic ones. Personally, I don't see how Mammy should not be considered a major, not minor character. And virtually no information given.

Page numbers

Giving page numbers in reference to a particular passage in the novel has only a limited use. There are many different editions of the novel, with different page numberings. It would be more useful to list the chapter number, since those do not change from edition to edition. — Walloon 05:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Prisoners of war

I have removed a long section that violates Wikipedia rules against original research, and that fails to take a neutral point of view.

Some examples from the deleted text:

Ms. Mithcell's political agenda causes her to bend history beyond fiction into outright lies upon the historical record. . . . The bitter historical truth of the failure of Officer Prisoner exchanges in the Civil War is based upon totally different set of historical facts that Ms. Mitchell had to ignore in order sustain the mountian of historical lies that are the "history" in her novel. . . . Where Ms. Mitchell gets the idea that Major Wilkes is not exchanged due to his noble intention to not be exchanged to fight for the Union is simply false. And hides the truth that Major Wilkes, and the cause he fought for was not noble in any way whatsoever

From a history of the Rock Island (Illinois) Civil War Prison Barracks:

During the twenty months, the active period of the prison, 12,409 prisoners had been confined. Of these, 730 were transferred to other stations; 3,876 were exchanged; 1,960 died while confined. 41 made their escape good; 5,581 were released after taking the amnesty oath; and approximately four thousand enlisted in the Union forces.

So yes, thousands of prisoners were exchanged, and thousands were released only after signing an amnesty oath, and thousands were enlisted in the Union forces. Nothing that Margaret Mitchell wrote in regard to Ashley's detention at Rock Island contradicts historical fact. — Walloon 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia: Ending changes - need sources

An interesting bit of trivia that I once saw on a documentary program was that in the first draft, Ms. Mitchell ended the book at the "I don't give a damn" line, but that her editor or publisher convinced her that she couldn't end the book on such a down note. At that point, she wrote the "tomorrow will be a better day" ending.

Alas, I don't have a citation for this (and it may be a myth in any event), so I'll put it here in the hopes that someone can confirm it.

Nsayer 20:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

Maybe a warning should be given as the whole plot is revealed...? Some people may acidentally read-on, and this may cause some disappointment.213.78.134.245 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. The section heading says "Plot summary" and there's no need to rub it in. The book was written seventy years ago so it's not exactly the latest episode of Doctor Who. --Tony Sidaway 23:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

With so many editions of this book out there, it's physically impossible to know how many printings there have been.Alli0323 17:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A question and a comment

There is no history of the publication of this major American novel. How many printings were made? How does it compare to other best sellers? How many languages was it translated into? I ask these question because I am sure the answers are not only important, but astonishing. The success of this novel was so amazing it was said no other work of fiction (other than the Bible) has outsold GWTW. Also, what impact did GWTW have on American culture? Where and when was it referenced by others? These subjects need to be addressed.Buddmar 01:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)buddmar

Size of plot section

04-Dec-2007: I have been trying to warn against vanity-tags being posted onto WP articles. In particular, the tag-box "Plot section too long" seems such an obvious opinionated rant-style vanity posture, grandstanding over a plot section. A plot is, by common sense, a large part of the subject. If someone is asked to describe a novel, they rarely say, "It's about 300 pages, about 2 pounds, about 7x9 inches, with Garamond font titles, high-quality paper, printed in New York after the new publishing center was built which is staffed by 50 part-time employees..." On the contrary, the plot is the main thing (longest part) about describing a novel. For wiki-history, file those "plot-section-too-long" vanity tag-boxes under "Opinionated wiki concepts that went too far" and continued to make Wikipedia look like a joke to the world. Note that keeping WP focused into a common-sense, mainstream view, will help reduce the world's perception that Wikipedia is leading the way in cosmic jokes. The trouble is caused by relatively small fringe-oid groups that force their peculiar opinions on everyone else. Some have even claimed to me that their viewpoint was a newly emerging Wikipedia standard: rarely true. There are many, many, competing, sub-groups in Wikipedia formulating guidelines or proposed policies in diverging directions.

For now, I am adding a statement (to the article) that the plot of GWTW contains many details which have triggered spin-off concepts, parodies, and cultural influences over the past decades. Thus, removing the need to complain about the plot-size issue. Thank you for your patience in letting me explain my opinions on this matter. -Wikid77 13:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Symbolism section added

04-Dec-2007: I have added a section titled "Symbolism" to encourage expansion into a large section to offset that "Plot section too big for rest of article" viewpoint. There is only one source reference, so far. Remember that symbolism is a topic that must be accompanied by source references, or else unsourced statements can be quickly removed/reverted. Personal opinions, according to policy, cannot be inserted about literary symbolism for a Wikipedia article: all symbolism must be traced to outside, verifiable sources, preferably using ref-tag footnotes (using the meta tags "<ref> </ref>"). -Wikid77 13:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Symbolism Section

I just deleted a section added by anonymous User:208.58.8.35. It was uncited, and gave the appearance of perhaps being in violation of WP:OR. Someone might want to check it in the edit log, and see if they have sources to confirm it. I would have copied it here, but it was a little long. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A user created a navbox and inserted it into multiple mainspace articles in the form of a template.. anyway I have taken the liberty and moved the navbox to a template {{Gone with the Wind}}. I don't have these pages watched and I'm not knowledgeable in this particular topic so could somebody go over the template and fix, tweak, or AfD as needed? Thanks --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 23:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Timing Error

According to the book, Ashley came home on furlough for the Christmas immediately prior to the Battle of Gettysburg. That would have been Christmas 1862. Yet Melanie did not deliver her child until September 1864, which was during the Battle of Atlanta. This would have meant she was pregnant for 21 months. Margaret Mitchell later acknowledged the error, and it was corrected in the movie. There, Ashley came home on furlough for the Christmas immediately following the Battle of Gettysburg.

John Paul Parks (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

False. Margaret Mitchell made no such acknowledgement, because there is no such error. In the novel, the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1863) occurs in Chapter 14. Ashley's Christmas furlough (December 1863) occurs in Chapter 15:
The army, driven back into Virginia, went into winter quarters on the Rapidan—a tired, depleted army since the defeat at Gettysburg— and as the Christmas season approached, Ashley came home on furlough.
Melanie delivers her child (September 1864) in Chapter 22. — Walloon (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Origional title

"Tomorrow is another day" is the original title of the book - if someone wants to add that in somewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.19.198 (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tara

Tara is named after the Hill of Tara in Ireland, not terra as in this article. Katana Geldar 10:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of publication

Shouldn't the dates of the first few reprints, number of sales, etc. be right at the top of this? Isn't that basic information about a book, especially a book as popular as this? It would also be relevant in discussions about the movie.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanevil (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GWTW not Mitchell's only novel

Lost Laysen was written by Margaret Mitchell when she was 16 years old. The manuscript was given to Henry Love Angel, whose son brought it to the public in 1995. The published edition includes correspondence from Mitchell and Angel, and photographs of the author. Since nearly all of Margaret Mitchell's personal papers were destroyed, Lost Laysen offers a rare glimpse of the author in her formative years. --66.159.233.66 (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And we have an article: Lost Laysen. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
... and according to that article, Lost Laysen is a novella, not a novel. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the book that different from the movie?

Newly inserted into lede:

Scarlett is a character who is wrought with the fear of fitting into society, especially after the death of her first husband. This obsession contributes to her decision to marry another man for money when her prized land, Tara, is becoming difficult to afford.

In the movie,Scarlet is a spoiled flirt who thinks the world revolves around her, and will do anything to make Ashley want her - including marrying her first husband to make him jealous. She is not wrought with fear, she shows little if any fear in the movie. She is upset after her husband dies because it spoils her social life - she must wear black & is expected to refrain from going to dances and parties.--JimWae (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

Where can I find a complete summary of the book? I found a complete summary of the movie but I'm not sure if it has differences from the book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.139.138 (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Summary section is woefully short. GWTW runs close to a thousand pages and almost the whole summary only covers the first 150 pages. Even the fall of Atlanta (the last part of the summary) was before page 400. The summary makes no mention of the part of the novel set in the Reconstruction period (1865-1877). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.30.159 (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The summary section, though painstakingly written, is not well written at all. Can someone go through and clean it to make it an overarching summary rather than bogged down with details? Also, the book is divided in the five parts, and this summary badly needs that division. That division was lost sometime in August 2010 (by Hezzi, I think) and this was an extremely poor decision IMHO. The parts need to go back on. Anyone want to take this on? -- 58.38.213.12 (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point, we need to take into consideration content that adds real value to the page from the viewer's perspective. Since the summary was updated, the page view statistics indicate about 30 percent increase in page views, which can be interpreted to mean we are headed in the right direction with the page. A 1000 page epic novel cannot be summarized into 2 paragraphs and retain any real value for the reader. Does adding the part numbers add real content value for the viewer? I don't think it does.Prairiegrl (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Page Views Month 2010 2011 % increase jan 77223 83308 8 feb 64064 96916 51 mar 69257 89451 29 apr 59733 114555 92 may 59753 87160 46 june 39161 78964 102 Prairiegrl (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to agree that the summary should be in five parts, just as the book is. I also agree with Prariegrl that the extended summary is more useful. An addition of dividers, however, does not mean a cutting back to the woefully brief version, I think it would help with the organization, just as it did in the novel itself. Yes, I think it does add real value.
As for using page stats to interpret that your way is the "right" way, since you're updating the page 3-10 times a day, you're presumably viewing the page several times that number a day, I'm not sure that this doesn't hurt your case since you're probably adding a significant percentage to that page stat all by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.148.137 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Slavery

I object to this sentence: "Mitchell almost entirely skipped over the subject of the morality of slavery or whether the South was justified in pursuing war against the North, preferring to allow the reader to decide these issues based upon the actions or inaction of the novel's characters." It's in the "Plot" section. I would say she does NOT skip over slavery's morality given how she presents the slaves in the novel, the way that some were happy in their enslavement, like Mammy and Big Sam. So I think the sentence should be removed as itself being a POV violation. The same is true for the assertion that she skipped over the issue of whether the South was justified.QuizzicalBee (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is something that bothers me as well. Actually, I think this article needs its own section detailing some of the criticisms this novel has received for the way it portrayed the historical era (along with responses to those criticisms). I'm not sure what sources to cite or what to include in it though. Kevinatilusa —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC).

Sourcing

Just a reminder--Wikipedia's rules, not mine--We must source statements. It's very time consuming to do it after a new statement has been posted. If you would be so kind, please try to source the new statement when you add it, being careful not to add your interpretation of what is in the book. (Not to say, I haven't done it myself.) Thanks all.Prairiegrl (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Catholicism

Does anyone know why Margaret Mitchell made Scarlett and her family Catholic? Catholics were quite a minority in the antebellum South outside of New Orleans. What's more, devout Catholics like the O'Hara family members would have been loathe to marry outside their religion, something that's not an issue in the novel. Mitchell herself wasn't Catholic, and as far as I can tell she had no particular interest in the religion. --PROSA (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)PROSA

Mitchell was raised a Catholic. She was married twice, but divorced her first husband. The first marriage was annulled by the Catholic church. In the novel, it was Ellen O'Hara who was a devout Catholic, and later, Carreen. Ellen's father was a Protestant. Scarlett's father, Gerald, wanted her to marry a boy from the neighboring plantation so they could join their property together or marry one of the Tarleton's, who were well-off. He was more interested in having Scarlett marry into money and property than her marrying a Catholic. Prairiegrl (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Harris Poll involves 2,513 people.

These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,513 U.S. adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive® between March 11 and 18, 2008. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080408005148/en/Bible-Americas-Favorite-Book-Wind

This is a question of elementary probability and statistics, and is covered in topics like population sampling, standard error, and confidence intervals. But a non-numerical approach which might help by way of analogy, is this: Suppose you took a teaspoon of water out of a small pond and tasted it, you would know right away whether it came from a fresh-water pond, or an estuary containing sea water, right? Now, how much water would you need to take out of the Pacific Ocean and taste (in a blind test in a lab) to be reasonably certain whether it was freshwater or seawater? Several boatloads? No--the same teaspoon of water would be enough, even though the Pacific ocean is zillions of times as big as the pond. Hth, Mathglot (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
* * *

Talk Page Cleanup

FYI I have gone through and deleted ten sections of this talk page that are irrelevant or out of date, so the remaining relevant issues on this page are easier to see. Just so you know, those sections were:


2 Separation (of book and movie). Suggestion already implemented.
7 Lynda Soper (old vandalism / mistake). Already fixed.
10 Fayetteville (old mistake). Already fixed.
12 Size of plot section (I moved it so that it's next to the summary edit point at #1)
18 Rhett Buttler (controversy of opinion / not canon). Already fixed.
19 Children born? (old mistake/question). Already fixed.
20 First paragraph, standard info. Suggestion already implemented.
21 IMDB. The imdb is for the movie, which has it's own page, and the imdb link is there.
23 Error in Text. (India was not in love with Charles.) Already fixed.
26 Was Belle Watling a protitute or only a madam? Semantics
28 Scarlett is a psychopath. (old vandalism) Already fixed. 58.38.213.12 (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably it was better to archive than to delete.
Today I moved the top section ("Summary") far down into chronological order and renamed it "Plot summary" which matches the article currently. --P64 (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Title

Can someone explain to me the rationale behind lower casing "with" in the title. It's wrong. It should be capped... "Gone With the Wind."Carsonmc (talk)

The publisher broke the rules for titles. Had they followed the rules, the w would be lower case because the word "with" is a preposition. The rule for a preposition in a title is:

Lowercase all articles, coordinate conjunctions ("and", "or", "nor"), and prepositions regardless of length, when they are other than the first or last word. (Note: NIVA prefers to capitalize prepositions of five characters or more ("after", "among", "between").)

So we use lower case w in the article so as to follow the correct rules for titles. We use a capital W in the title above the book image to note that the publisher uses a capital W.Prairiegrl (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

gone with the wind report

what would you do for a gone with the wind report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.89.187 (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

POV-check-section: Criticisms for racial issues

The section titled Criticisms for racial issues presents only one side of the issue, concluding with:

Criticisms such as these have led historian James Loewen to describe Gone with the Wind as, "A profoundly racist novel."

The consensus of critical opinion cannot be as uniformly aligned against the novel as this section implies, and James Loewen can hardly be held up as an impartial observer when it comes to the South. Therefore I am adding {{POV-check-section}} to this section.--Jim10701 (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that GWTW does not include much racism, because it does. What I am concerned about is this section's (echoing James Loewen's) assertion that it is "a profoundly racist novel," with the inescapable implication that it promotes or defends racism. Documenting racism - which is what GWTW does, in my opinion - is not the same as defending racism.
The "monkeys" segment from the novel, which is quoted in this section, for example, is found (on p. 645 in my 1973 Avon paperback copy) in the middle of a very, very long passage relating Scarlett's internal, unspoken, wildly rambling and nearly hysterical reaction to the frightening developments in the South during the very early days of Reconstruction, when white Southerners had no legal rights at all and lived in constant terror of what the victorious North might do to them. It is a brilliantly written and harrowing passage, but her musings are more like the relating of a nightmare than the exposition of a considered sociological treatise on the nature of black people.
To claim that Scarlett herself was a racist is understandable (but even that is debatable); but to characterize GWTW as "a profoundly racist novel" because it portrays a character's personal viewpoint under extreme circumstances with brutal accuracy seems extremely shortsighted, superficial and gratuitous, very far from the neutral point of view we aim for here at Wikipedia.
If the problem is that Margaret Mitchell did not explicitly condemn the racism she was documenting but simply reported it, then that is the point that should be made in this article. But even that criticism should be supported with more documentation than one pop-historian's inflammatory opinion that the novel is profoundly racist.--Jim10701 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
We aren't intentionally trying to skew this section in one way or the other. We are well aware that we only have one opinion. The problem is we haven't done the research yet to document other points of view. I personally hate seeing tags placed in the article. A more accurate tag would probably be "this section under construction." But still I don't like to see tags.Prairiegrl (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


The 'Criticisms for racial issues' section ends with the following statement: 'African Americans and Irish Americans are treated "in precisely the same way in Gone with the Wind".[118]'. This sentence might make sense in the context of the academic paper which is the source of the quote (I don't know, I haven't read the paper), but here, quoted in isolation, it is simply bizarre. The African American characters in GWTW are slaves, or recently freed slaves. The Irish American characters on the other hand include the central character Scarlett O'Hara and her slave-owning plantation family. I think there are also some 'poor white' Irish characters in the book, but even to compare these with enslaved African Americans is absurd. So either we need some more context about what this paper says about racism in GWTW, or the sentence should go. And that is leaving aside the more subjective question of the implicit racism in how the characters are presented. The black characters do not exist except in relation to the 'important' white central players; at best they are loyal ciphers (Mammy) with no plot or interior life apart from their roles as servants. In other words, they are portrayed as less than fully human. Therefore I strongly disagree with Jim10701's comment above that GWTW simply "documents racism" in a neutral kind of way. In general I think the (very short) Criticisms for Racial Issues section gives GWTW a pretty easy ride.TuttiFruttiCherryPie (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Today I edited dozens of references by moving commas, adding spaces, italic-izing titles, and so on. The references will benefit from more such detail work, preferably after choosing a single style such as "Author (date)" at the beginning.

The references to latterday editions of GWTW need attention, tagged {clarification needed}. Did Patrick Conroy write one or two prefaces? What date? I specified "Patrick Conroy (2011)" in one of them, only a guess. The other does not give any date at all. First Pocket Book ed. was 1968, the year Patrick Conroy graduated from The Citadel (i infer from the article). --P64 (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)



Much Valuable information about cultural adaptations of this story has been edited out

Hi I am concerned that there has been a major hatchet job done to this article in removing legitimate references to cultural adaptations of the Gone With the Wind story in Asia, Europe, UK etc including musicals and ballets which are highly regarded. This is a distortion as it erased a considerable aspect of the ongoing cultural importance of this novel. This material was present in earlier renditions of the article and was well referenced

could someone with time on their hands seek to restore this valuable content???

There wasn't a hatchet job. It was summarized into a single paragraph and is all still there under Adaptations except for the UK show. The news article links for that show were dead and it was removed. All the others were wiki-linked.Prairiegrl (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There is also much to be said about the novel's cultural impact amongst women readers in europe and UK during and after the second world war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebe Jumeau (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede needs a rewrite

The lede needs a rewrite. The first sentence is okay, but the rest should be moved (way) down into an analysis or criticism section somewhere, where such fine points as whether it does or doesn't qualify as a romance novel can be argued. Meanwhile, the expensive real estate at the top of the page is wasted on relative trivia. Currently, we have:

Gone with the Wind is a novel written by Margaret Mitchell, first published in 1936. It is often placed in the literary sub-genre of the historical romance novel. However, it has been argued the novel is a "near miss" and does not contain all of the elements of the romance genre, making it simply a historical novel. The novel has also been described as an early classic of the erotic historical genre, therefore implying that it contains some degree of porn.

Moving these pin-dancing, analytical angels to some dusty corner of the article will free up the lede to contain some basic setting and plot info, a word about the film, and maybe the fact that it's Mitchell's only novel. As a comparison, see for example Tortilla Flat, which came out the preceding year. The lede there is nothing fancy, but it gets the job done. Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC).

This information you requested is already in the lead. The article begins with the same intro as the gwtw film article, in terms of the genre it fits into.Prairiegrl (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, that comment about porn seems suspect to me. If that's truly a critical opinion supported by at least a few reputable critics, even if they're a minority, then by all means let it remain (after being moved lower down) but if so, then let's have a source reference attesting to it. But if it's vandalism or WP:OR then it should be removed entirely. Mathglot (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not vandalism at all and it is sourced. The porn in the novel has yet to be discussed.Prairiegrl (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sales & Publicity section needed

Gone With the Wind, besides its literary value, was a huge commercial success with book sales the likes of which had never been seen. Published in July, the millionth copy was sold before the end of the year, despite an unusually high cover price. Publicity also played an important role. For example, MacMillan placed an extremely unusual, full-page color ad in the Saturday Evening Post promoting it.

A section covering the economics and commercial aspects of the book seems warranted. Mathglot (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of this information has already been included in the article. Perhaps you need to read it more carefullyPrairiegrl (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Image removed from article

I removed this image, and comments, as the price is a pencilled price the type normally provided by a used book dealer. I dont think this counts as a reference to show the original price, which would have been printed on the dust jacket.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I put the picture back in the article. I don't think your opinion of when the price was placed in the book justifies removing it. Probably would have been better to reword the description slightly to reflect that fact than remove the picture entirely.Prairiegrl (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Who reads GWTW?

I'm a university graduate and a male and I've tried to read GWTW half a dozen times and I found the novel to be pure drivel. According to this Wiki article the main readers are females without a university education. Is there a more complete source on who actually reads this book? I get the impression that maybe 95% of the readers are female. Could it be considered the first Silhouette romance novel? The theme of the book is pretty obvious--Scarlett is a whore, but she gets away with it because she's a Southern belle. Were Southern belles really like this? I've read that a lot of them smoked opium. Is the attraction of the novel that Scarlet is a whore who lies, cheats and steals--and gets rich because of it? As such, it is a very immoral novel and would surely have a negative effect on women and girls who read it. I'd like to see a chart (sex, age, education level, etc.) on who actually reads GWTW. It's not about slavery or the Civil War--that's just the backdrop--it's actually about a manipulative woman. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

How do we ban the vandalism?

(Sorry I don't know what's up with my mouse, can't paste things.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.77.140.66 has been busy vandalizing this and other pages. How do we report this and get the user banned? Or do we just hope that they will lose interest after a few months? This person has been a consistent vandal since opening the account in 2010. 75.17.112.234 (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Famously" influenced by War and Peace?

I've just read (in a tribute piece to the late Colleen McCullough) that Gone with the Wind was "famously influenced by War and Peace". At first I took that at face value, then I came looking for discussion of that influence, and came up empty.

Is this influence really "famous", and if so, why do we not mention it at either article? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Key to book citations

Part Chapter Citation
1 1 ref name=autogenerated5
1 2 ref name=autogenerated6
1 3 ref name=autogenerated7
1 4 ref name=autogenerated57
1 5 ref name=autogenerated2
1 6 ref name=autogenerated3
1 7 ref name=autogenerated4
2 8 ref name=autogenerated61
2 9 ref name=autogenerated70
2 10 Part 2, chapter 10
2 11 ref name=autogenerated177
2 12 Part 2, chapter 12
2 13 ref name=autogenerated1
2 14 ref name=autogenerated59
2 15 Part 2, chapter 15
2 16 ref name=autogenerated513
3 17 ref name=autogenerated156
3 18 Part 3, chapter 18
3 19 ref name=autogenerated11
3 20 Part 3, chapter 20
3 21 ref name=autogenerated60
3 22 ref name=autogenerated10
3 23 Part 3, chapter 23
3 24 ref name=autogenerated9
3 25 Part 3, chapter 25
3 26 ref name=autogenerated512
3 27 Part 3, chapter 27
3 28 Part 3, chapter 28
3 29 ref name=autogenerated511
3 30 ref name=autogenerated54
4 31 Part 4, chapter 31
4 32 Part 4, chapter 32
4 33 Part 4, chapter 33
4 34 Part 4, chapter 34
4 35 ref name=autogenerated56
4 36 ref name=autogenerated19
4 37 ref name=autogenerated44
4 38 Part 4, chapter 38
4 39 ref name=autogenerated47
4 40 Part 4, chapter 40
4 41 ref name=autogenerated13
4 42 ref name=autogenerated14
4 43 Part 4, chapter 43
4 44 Part 4, chapter 44
4 45 Part 4, chapter 45
4 46 ref name=autogenerated51
4 47 ref name=autogenerated12
5 48 Part 5, chapter 48
5 49 Part 5, chapter 49
5 50 ref name=autogenerated18
5 51 Part 5, chapter 51
5 52 Part 5, chapter 52
5 53 Part 5, chapter 53
5 54 ref name=autogenerated17
5 55 Part 5, chapter 55
5 56 ref name=autogenerated15
5 57 ref name=autogenerated16
5 58 Part 5, chapter 58
5 59 Part 5, chapter 59
5 60 Part 5, chapter 60
5 61 ref name=autogenerated53
5 62 ref name=autogenerated86
5 63 ref name=autogenerated50
NA About the Author ref name=author

Film as primary?

If the novel is no longer primary, then the film certainly should be. Leaving this with no primary kind of taras me up. Randy Kryn 14:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I missed this whole discussion. I wish notification had been left at the film article's talk page (which is on my watchlist). Readers are invariably looking for one or the other and they are both prominent (one is a bestseller while the other is the most successful film ever made and both are iconic) so I think we are doing readers a disservice by sending them to a disambiguation page. The film links to the book in the first sentence of the article, and the book article used to have a hatnote to the film article so I would argue that between them the two articles pretty much took care of 99% of the traffic without any need for a disambiguaton page. I have no preference which takes the primary name (the book article arguably works better as a WP:DABCONCEPT whereas the film article is arguably what most readers seek) but either way I don't see how we are helping readers by making them go to a disambiguation page first! Betty Logan (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Randy and Betty, maybe we can do the stats experiment on both the film and the novel. Look at that discussion, and we can await Dohn joe's response to this situation. --George Ho (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of setting special redirects for tracking page usage. I'd wait just a bit for the various redirects and links to sort themselves after the move, but if someone wanted to set up special redirects, I'd say go for it. Feel free to ping me with any questions on how. Dohn joe (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all the above (except maybe Randy's worst.pun.ever). Redirect experiments can also confirm how few people, relatively, are affected. One experiment a few years ago showed that only about 1.8% of the hits on New York City (arguably the primary topic) came through a hatnote on New York (article about the state). Another showed that only about 2.5% of the hits on Abraham Lincoln came from Lincoln (a dab page). Station1 (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Some inspiration

According to the entry on Mary Ann Harris Gay, her 1892 memoir Life in Dixie During the War inspired several scenes in Mitchell's book. However, I could not find any mention of that in this entry.

Did I miss it or is it not here? 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gone with the Wind (novel). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"some degree of pornography"

I think it would help to give at least one example to substantiate the claim. AAABBB222 (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

"Dark sexuality" - Dubious (to me) statements

I have read "Gone with the Wind". Under the section "Dark sexuality", there are some statements that, to me, do not pass the smell test. I have no doubt that someone, somewhere has made the statements. But to me, they lack any plausibility. For example: A) "the two white protagonists are a metaphor for an interracial couple", and B) "Rhett and Scarlett's bedroom scene (Chapter 54) is often read as a rape that was meant to suggest Reconstruction fear of black-on-white rape in the South.". Does any other reader familiar with the book think those ideas are reasonable? I find them unreasonable. To me, it is patently obvious that Rhett, while "tall, dark, and handsome", is 100% portrayed as being white, and that there is not the slightest hint they are an interracial couple. So to me, as an educated and reasonable person, the section is basically nonsense. I understand the prohibition against original research. I understand there are citations. On the other hand, one can find all kinds of bizarre interpretations if one looks at enough literary criticisms. And there seems a problem when the article says something so obviously (to me) false. AAABBB222 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The section looks like a lot of WP:SYNTHESIS to me. Just take the second paragraph for example: it draws on the physical characteristics source to the book itself and then ties it to somebody's observation that "Their romance crosses racial boundaries in a paradox to the usual white man and black or multi-racial woman, upending racial stereotypes." Does the author who makes this claim also make the same physical comparisons? It seems very woolly to me. And who are the people behind these claims? As a start I would advocate removing any analysis that isn't by i) an academic qualified in some aspect of sociology, history or literature or ii) a respected literary critic. Anything that is left will need to be considered more carefully. Betty Logan (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The article also says "Rhett is a terrifying faceless black bulk". I reread the book. In the scene, there is a single candle behind Rhett. He is silhouetted against the candle. A silhouette is by definition black. But again Rhett is not portrayed as black. So I'm sorry, but I must repeat it seems nonsense to use this as an argument for "the two white protagonists are a metaphor for an interracial couple", or similar outlandish (to me) claims. To me, "metaphor for an interracial couple" is a bizarre interpretation only supported by taking a few passages, such as the "black bulk" passage, out of context. Does anybody seriously believe "the two white protagonists are a metaphor for an interracial couple", or that "Their romance crosses racial boundaries", or that "Rhett and Scarlett's bedroom scene (Chapter 54) is often read as a rape that was meant to suggest Reconstruction fear of black-on-white rape in the South."? If so, why? AAABBB222 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Questions about 'Publication and reprintings (1936-USA)'

To me, the detailed table about printings in 1936 seems almost totally useless. The information is probably correct. However, I think it would rarely if ever be of interest to a reader. It seems like filler to me. Who cares exactly which month and how many times printed? Also, what does 'indistinguishable copies' mean? Can we just say 'copies'? AAABBB222 (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The table most likely fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Betty Logan (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Given the lack of anyone trying to defend the table, I removed it. Also, I changed the wording to 'copies'. AAABBB222 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gone with the Wind (novel). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Pretty certain the publisher should be Macmillan Publishers (United States), not the British publisher Macmillan currently linked. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. SSTflyer 10:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


– One the one hand a Pulitzer prizewinner and the second most read book in the USA (after the Bible), on the other hand the film listed by the Guinness Book of Records as the most successful ever, with many other distinctions both in polls and awards. It's perhaps doubtful whether there is a primary topic, the film may even have some claim to this, but clear that the book is not the primary topic by both primary topic criteria. Andrewa (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support per nom. I don't think there is a clear case for either the film or novel to be the primary topic. Also, I suspect there are currently lots of incorrect incoming links to the novel that should go to the film. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and Lugnuts. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the second criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Red Slash 18:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Red Slash and the past and ongoing popularity, as well as the historical and cultural significance, of this extraordinarily important novel. Randy Kryn 20:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: The movie is one of the most revered films of all time and there's no way the book is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on either criterion. Zarcadia (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Statistics say that the film is viewed more than the novel (and any other entries). Once moved, the novel would lose viewership. The dabconcept would not apply because dabconcept implies primacy. The novel lacks that per usage. George Ho (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Andrewa's nomination, Lugnuts and George Ho. The film has certainly had greater viewership than the book has had readership but, in deference to the film's literary legacy, both should be given equal status within the disambiguation page, rather than one being raised as the primary topic over the other. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Hard for either one to be a primary topic in this case. kennethaw88 • talk 04:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Either the novel should be the primary topic with a hatnote to the disambiguation page, or the film should be the primary topic with a hatnote. It doesn't serve readers to show them a disambiguation page first, when they will be looking for one of the two almost all of the time. As to which should be primary, I would slightly favor the novel, but more importantly I favor not changing the existing situation without reason to do so. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The preceding comment is exactly right. No one wants to land on a dab page. When the overwhelming majority want one of two topics, one of those should have the title with a hatnote pointing to the other. That way at least many people are where they want to be and the others can get where they want with one click, rather than everyone having to click through a dab page; a dab page would improve the process for no one and inconvenience many. Station1 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move. This is exactly what dab pages are for - there is a reasonable argument neither is the primary topic, so WP:TWODABS says neither gets the base name. I understand TWODABS is merely a guideline, but what reason is there to not follow it here?  ONR  (talk)  09:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The novel's article already functions as a WP:DABCONCEPT discussing the film and other adaptations. As virtually everyone searching for "Gone with the Wind" is looking for this franchise, it would be detrimental to send them all to a dab page instead.--Cúchullain t/c 21:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The two seem to be more or less equal in terms of common usage and long term significance, so neither is primary and guidelines say we should have a dab page. The assertion above that "no one wants to land on a dab page" may be sort of true, but on the other hand nobody wants to land on the wrong page either, and arguably that's worse because an article will use more bandwidth downloading than a dab page does. Having both topics disambiguated also aids users who come to us through a Google search, because the disambiguator will appear there too.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The movie is without a doubt more known (and more searched) than the novel, and the statistics confirm this. Anyway, the topic about dab pages when there are only two important articles, related to each other, should be improved. By the way, the hatnote should be in the movie article, not in the book article. --Almicione (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

As I write the last two oppose !votes seem to flatly contradict established policy, as Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus puts it.

The argument that It doesn't serve readers to show them a disambiguation page first, when they will be looking for one of the two almost all of the time... seems completely inconsistent with wp:twodabs for a start. That policy reads in part If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term. (my emphasis and wikilink)

Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are. WP:TWODABS is not a policy, it is merely part of a guideline (that's an important difference), so the opposition reasoning can't "flatly contradict established policy" as you put it. Policy is at WP:AT and WP:IAR (note also WP:PG which says "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense"). Leaving that aside, TWODABS is generally about whether to create a dab page in cases where there is a primary topic and one or two other topics; not directly relevant here since there's already a hatnote and a dab page. If you're saying that the opposition is inconsistent only with the particular sentence you quote, that would be true only if we accept your premise that there is no primary topic, but none of the opposition statements accept that premise. One of the two is primary. Whether the film or novel is primary, the vast majority of readers want one of the two. Just because a few editors can't decide which of the two is primary doesn't mean readers are better served by defaulting to a dab page. If we ignore all rules, neither your proposal nor any supporter above has yet explained exactly why, in this particular case, a dab page is an improvement for readers over the current setup. Station1 (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Having Gone with the Wind be a dab page completely eliminates the case where a link meant to point to the film actually points to the novel, or vice versa. Furthermore, it makes it much easier to maintain links to ensure all are correct.  ONR  (talk)  09:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a move will make it somewhat easier for editors to maintain links in the future. Lugnuts implied that above. That is why I emphasized readers. It has long been consensus that we shouldn't ever implement a change that makes things worse for readers just because it might benefit editors. Not to mention that a move would make all the hundreds of wikilinks currently pointing to Gone with the Wind automatically incorrect. Has anyone volunteered to fix those, or are they to be left for an indefinite period until the dab page cleanup editors get to it? Station1 (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
And your argument is that having a DAB at a base name makes things worse for readers even when there is no primary topic, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Good point! I did miss that. But I see that Wikipedia:Article titles#Disambiguation reads in part If the topic is not primary, the ambiguous name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated. (my emphasis) So my point that these !votes flatly contradict established policy seems to stand. Andrewa (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Once again, that would be a valid point only if there were no primary topic. You seem to be taking that as a given. But all the opposition statements so far say there is a primary topic. You may reasonably disagree with the argument that there is a primary topic (although even in your proposal you seem to acknowledge at least the possibility of a primary topic), but you can't correctly say the argument ignores or contradicts policy. Station1 (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Glad you agree it would be a valid point only if there were no primary topic. That is exactly what I am arguing. But I don't see how you can conclude that I am taking that as a given. Yes, my proposal does acknowledge at least the possibility of a primary topic, and it does so in order to make the point that even if the film is the primary topic, we still need some sort of move.
Why do you say I can't correctly say the argument ignores or contradicts policy? Again, that is exactly what I am saying. The policy and the argument are both pretty clear, and they are not on the same planet, frankly! Either we have DABS at base names or we don't. Argument is we don't. Policy is we do. Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I fear I haven't made myself clear to you, despite having said the same thing three times. You seem to think I am arguing something along the lines of "There is no primary topic, but screw policy, let's keep the article here anyway". But all the opposition statements say there IS a primary topic. Some say "There IS a primary topic, and since there IS a primary topic, here's an additional logical reason why a move will harm readers". Now whether there is or isn't a primary topic is something about which reasonable people may disagree. But an argument that takes as its premise that there IS a primary topic cannot logically run afoul of a policy that begins "If the topic is not primary..." Station1 (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
That seems to be a new argument, but you have answered my post in some measure below so I'll reply there. Now to this one. If all the opposition statements say there IS a primary topic, then if there is no primary topic, the opposition to the move all collapses, is that correct?
If on the other hand the film is the primary topic, then there is an even stronger case for a (different) move.
I'm afraid your paraphrases of my arguments do not strike me as at all accurate or helpful. Pure rhetoric. Andrewa (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
We're not communicating well, unfortunately. I don't think I introduced any new argument, and wasn't paraphrasing your arguments, so I'll make just two brief observations and then skip down below to briefly continue there. First, if you are asking whether the crux of this RM is whether or not there is a primary topic, then yes, I agree that is the question. The answer is a matter of opinion, which is divided in the survey above. Second, if the film is the primary topic, then yes, you have a case for a different move proposal. I would probably not oppose it, although I think others would. Station1 (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
You stated You seem to think I am arguing something along the lines of "There is no primary topic, but screw policy, let's keep the article here anyway". Now you say you are not paraphrasing me. Agree we are not communicating. Andrewa (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I was paraphrasing what I thought you thought I was arguing, not your argument. Sorry that is confusing. Station1 (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you that the votes that implicitly reject TWODABS ought to be discounted: this isn't a case for IAR, and disagreements with the guideline should be pursued at WT:DAB. Rebbing 13:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It is much easier to gain consensus if we simply discount the reasoned arguments of those with whom we disagree, rather than refute them. Station1 (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
We aren't writing on a blank slate. Guidelines exist for a reason; we don't get to set aside the established wishes of the broader community just because we disagree. However, I find your argument intriguing; perhaps you should pursue it where it can make a meaningful difference? Rebbing 18:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sincerely glad you find the argument intriguing. That was my hope when expressing it, that people would consider it, nothing more. However, it is not a new or novel argument. Other editors (see above, for example) and I have been making the argument for years at similar RMs. Some editors agree with it; some don't. Sometimes it might have had some persuasive effect; other times maybe not. It has never gained consensus for use in all similar situations; neither has there ever been a consensus against it. It was always taken as one argument among many, on a case by case basis. But never before do I recall anyone saying it was an argument to be dismissed out of hand and not considered, nor has anyone ever before suggested that it somehow contradicts policy (because it doesn't). Station1 (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Very interesting indeed. See below. Andrewa (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
No. I would not get away with that. But are you saying that showing that an argument is contrary to both guidelines and (now) policy isn't enough to refute it? What more must be done? I'm fascinated.
As they stand, those two oppose !votes should be discarded under wp:closing discussions#Consensus. If we acknowledge this then perhaps the users concerned will fix them, or at least avoid such !votes in future. If we deny it, then we are misleading the contributors and wasting their time. Andrewa (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The argument is not contrary to policy or guidelines, so the best way to refute it is to show how the logic behind it might be flawed. Or show how a dab page would benefit readers, which has yet to appear anywhere on this page. I'd also be interested in how to "fix" my opposition statement so that it would be more persuasive. Certainly I won't avoid making such arguments in the future, when appropriate, because in the past, when similar arguments have been made, open-minded editors have always considered them (which is not to say they have always necessarily been persuaded). Station1 (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There are exceptions to the primary topic rules, cases covered by WP:IAR, but they are rare and the onus is on those invoking IAR to show why it should overrule the specific policy or guideline in the case in question, not on those who want to apply the policy or guideline to show how a dab page would benefit readers case by case. That would make it pointless to have policies and guidelines!
Merely repeating that an argument is not in conflict with policy does not remove the conflict. I ended a post above with two simple statements: Argument is we don't. Policy is we do. You seem to disagree with at least one of these. Which one, or is it both?? Andrewa (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Conversely, merely repeating an assertion that an argument is in conflict with policy does not make it so. At least we agree we're repeating ourselves. I'm not sure I quite understand your final question, but if you're asking whether I agree with the statement that policy requires a dab page in this case, the answer is no. Policy says we have a dab page when there is no primary topic; in this case there is a primary topic (imo). Now, this very interesting conversation has become quite long and I feel we may be at an impasse, so I think I'll stop here unless some other brave and/or foolish editor wants to jump in and try to clear some of this up for one or both of us. Station1 (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
In other words you are stumped. Both statements are true, and you can't see any way to deny that, but you are not going to admit it either, because that would mean admitting that the argument and policy are in conflict.
Neither statement is about this specific case, they are both about whether to ever have a DAB at a base name. So your paraphrase is inaccurate. Andrewa (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll try one last time: We should use dab pages when there is no primary topic. We should not use dab pages when there is a primary topic. In this case, there is a primary topic. I don't know how to be clearer. Station1 (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, that is certainly not what I thought you were saying! Progress!
Agree with those principles. (Just disagree that the novel is the primary topic.)
What I still do not understand is how you can support The argument that "It doesn't serve readers to show them a disambiguation page first, when they will be looking for one of the two almost all of the time...", which was the jumping off point for this discussion.
Your views as now expressed are 100% in line with policy, but seem to contradict that line of argument, just as policy does. Andrewa (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
To illustrate my reasoning: 100 readers type "gone with the wind [enter]" in the Search box. Let's assume 65 want the film, 30 want the novel and 5 want the musical. Under the current setup, 65 must click once on a hatnote to get to the film, 30 are happy and 5 must click twice (hatnote+dabpage) to get to the musical. If the base name becomes a dab page, 65 must click once to get to the film (i.e. no change), 30 must click once to get to the novel (they are worse off) and 5 must click once for the musical (they are better off). I'm not suggesting this is a big deal either way — quite the contrary (see below) — but a move would be a small net detriment to WP, in my opinion. Station1 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Since this discussion was initiated as the result of a comment [05:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)] and response [13:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)] at the earlier (and still active) vote regarding Talk:A Clockwork Orange#Requested move 04 September 2016, we may subsequently visit List of films#Based on literature and Category:Films based on works for an extremely extensive supply of topics for future discussions. Whether the current discussion sets a precedent is itself debatable, in that each comparison of the original work with its film version may have a dissimilar background, requiring a newly-minted examination. In many (most?) cases, the film is undoubtedly better known to the public at large than the book, but that is not how the matching Wikipedia articles are presented, with the book, or corresponding work of literature, occasionally (frequently?) occupying the primary spot. Almicione, who raised the issue with the nomination of A Clockwork Orange, provided a head start with the sentence, "For similar cases, see The Shining (film), The Silence of the Lambs (novel), The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (novel), Trainspotting (novel), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel), etc." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone just correctly mentioned at Talk:A Clockwork Orange that most people wind up at the article they want, no matter what we title them. In most cases it's probably not worth the trouble to switch the film and novel articles. The vast majority of readers get to our articles directly from Google and other search engines or external links. A few other readers come from internal wikilinks or the internal search engine with its own prioritization algorithms and dropdown list. Probably well under 5% wind up on a page they don't expect to be on and need to click a link to get where they want. In every example you mention, Google shows both the novel and film among the first 2 or 3 items listed (for Trainspotting they also show the soundtrack, and for The Shining they also show the miniseries among the top 3). No matter what we do here, articles about the novels and the films will still be the first two items on Google. Station1 (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Some/many/most Wikipedians are dedicated to/obsessed with order, uniformity, analogous formulation. Such matters cannot be simply abandoned to their own devices or left in an arbitrary form. The very nature of spending inordinate amounts of time with the minutiae of requested moves separates the true believer from the dabbler. We decide whether Talk:Murder of JonBenét Ramsey should be renamed Killing of JonBenét Ramsey, whether Talk:Bark (short story collection) or (book), (novel), (story), (fiction), (story collection) should be standardized as (short story collection), whether the Ukrainian Talk:Hretska Ploshcha should be Hretska Square or whether Talk:Friday the 13th Part 2 should be Friday the 13th Part II. Amidst such varied decisions we cannot do any less in continuing to set standards within each new discussion regarding book/film primary topics. However one manages to reach the desired topic is not as much at issue as is arbitrariness — and Wikipedians, each speaking with individual opinion, abhor arbitrariness. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Well put, and too true. Station1 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gone_with_the_Wind_(novel)/Archive_1&oldid=1146789539"