Talk:Atticus Finch

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alabama Start‑class

	Alabama portal This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Fictional characters Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Milton Dees

Milton Dees is quoted as saying he became a lawyer because of Atticus Finch. As our English friends would say, "not bloody likely." Dees was graduated from the University of Alabama Law School in 1960, the year the book was published. Dees' decision to become a lawyer obviously occurred a few years before the book was published.John Paul Parks (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo2505:

-I chose to make Atticus Finch as a separate article because of his signifigance as a literary hero.

-I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.27.147 (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if there were articles about each of the characters, then they could be merged as well into the article.

To merge or not to merge, that is the question

Merge I agree, this page should merged back into the To Kill a Mockingbird article. --Typer525 ^Talk Click here at your own risk 02:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Agree The article does not benefit by being seperate from the artice To Kill A Mockingbird and should therefore be merged. Ed 10:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree--Atticus Finch is an important figure in literature. I say he should most definately have his own page. Maybe I should stand guard against his page to make sure its not deleted without an unfair trial! :-) --68.154.71.137 05:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Atticus is an important literary figure, and he is studied in many classrooms (my class just wrapped up our "To Kill A Mockingbird" unit last week). The page also has enough content to merit it's own article; like Harry Potter or Eragon. --Hojimachong^talk 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also disagree I think Atticus Finch deserves his own page. Besides being a highly prominent character in American literature, he is also a classic hero in American Film. if you look at the AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains page, almost single character has a link to their own page. Atticus is the #1 hero; he should have a page of his own as well. Hundreds of literary protagonists have their own pages, too, like Holden Caulfield, Scarlett O'Hara, Gregor Samsa-- even Humbert Humbert from Lolita! If there's something more that should be added to make this page more substantial, add it, but don't take away the page! --David_Costello 17:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As popular a character as Finch is, he exists in a single novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. Is the character taken up as a subject in any source except in the context of the novel? Most of the information on the Finch page duplicates what's on the Mockingbird page. Put everything about Finch on the Mockingbird page and make the Finch page redirect to Mockingbird. (I think the individual pages for all the characters David Costello mentions should be merged into the pages for their respective novels, but I will start with the merge template with Atticus whom I care about.) --Meyer 07:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As important as Atticus is in the story of To Kill a Mockingbird, he exists only in the book and movie and the pages should be combined.

Yes, but... Meyer has some good points, but does this article really just repeat what it already says in To Kill A Mockingbird? I don't think so: it provides information on Atticus' literary importance, the film version of Atticus and notes on the actor who played him, and information on the inspiration for the character, none of which appears in the book article. Granted, there are some things in References in Popular Culture that were borrowed from the book page, but I just put those in there to get other people interested in contributing anything I may have missed. Though confined to just one book, Atticus is a very unique character in American literature, and an article focusing exclusively on him would be a useful encyclopedic tool for literary students who don't yet know of his importance. --David_Costello 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. Besides, it would be useful to have a page on Atticus Finch that does not give away the ending of the book/movie, so that anybody who wants to learn about Atticus himself will not have to have the plot spoiled for them.

The Mockingbird article could definitely use improvement, like spoiler tags around the plot details section. --Meyer 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Hojimachong. 1ne 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge He is one of the most famous literary figures in the western world, he most certainly deserves his own article. I do think that this article needs a to be greatly improved. A lot of this information is similar to information on the other page, and that should change.Darkcraft 12:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about deserving an article, but if there were more solid information dealing with Atticus independently of either the book or the film I might change my mind about merging.--Meyer 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(WP:FICT has guidelines on this issue. It boils down to Atticus should be covered on the Mockingbird book and film pages unless there is so much material about him it makes one of the main pages too long, in which case he can get his own page. I challenge those of you who oppose the merge to beef-up this page as Darkcraft suggests (with good info. and not garbage) until there is too much good stuff to fit on the Mockingbird page. Then there would be no reason to merge it. --Meyer 07:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
That can be arranged: Give me through the weekend and I can probably do that. --David_Costello 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Simply ridiculous.--Herbsewell 20:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Atticus Finch is not only a character in To Kill A Mockingbird, it's what he stands for that is important, so therefore he is more than a character, and seeing as this is an encyclopedia, it needs to have a seperate page for Atticus.--Bennelmes 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Atticus is not simply a character in To Kill a Mockingbird, he is an iconic figure in American literature. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't know if there is much of a novel without Atticus Finch. DandyDan2007 00:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Again, Atticus is a big-deal cultural figure who gets referenced all the time. Users might well have reason to learn directly about who Atticus is apart from their interest in Lee's novel, and discussion or mention of Atticus's cultural status and reception might be interesting and appropriate here, but significantly less appropriate in the discussion page for the book. (And, hey, if obscure Sonic the Hedgehog characters have their own Wikipedia entries, surely classic literary characters get them, too!) 152.2.205.209 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for whether or not a fictional character should have its own WP page is not fame or literary significance or the existence of pages for unrelated silly characters. The standard is whether or not there is too much encyclopedia-quality information about the character assembled on WP to fit comfortably on the page for the literary work in which the character appears. Right now the Atticus Finch page is no more than a stub if you subtract unencyclopedic material and information that belongs on either the book or the film page. All your opposition to the page merge would carry a lot more weight if you spent even half the time you are now using posting oppose votes here in making improvements to the page. Prove your love for Atticus by making a page worthy of him. (Which page should be Mockingbird, I still think.) --Meyer 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The fact that he is considered number one by AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains entitles him to a page of his own. Granted, reading through his article there is probably some things that can be trimmed. But certainly he is a notable character from To Kill a Mockingbird, and I would argue the only one notable enough to deserve an article. b_cubed 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count four votes in favor of merging and 12 in opposition. Seeing that the two-weeks time (as alotted for such decisions) has expired since the bulk of the voting, this matter officially closed. As the opinion is decidedly against such a merger, Atticus Finch will not be merged into To Kill a Mockingbird. b_cubed 11:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I THINK THAT ATTICUS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FIGURE IN LITERAURE BECAUSE HE STANDS UP FOR MORAL COURAGE AND DOING THE RIGHT THING, EVEN THOUGH HE KNEW OF THE CONCEQUENCES

Comment Firstly, this should go to an AfD. Secondly, this article reeks of WP:WAX, senitment, and promises of content. Tar7arus 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose - Atticus was mentioned as part of To Kill a Mockingbird's summary on the Main Page. Plus, there is a whole cited section concerning this fictitious character's impact on the judicial world. He is notable enough to merit his own article. If Charizard could become FA, Atticus can have his own article.--haha169 (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose merge as well per User_talk:Pixelface#Something_different_to_work_on, i.e. one of the most significant heroes of literature and film. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Atticus Finch is one of the most important figures in American literature, the themes he stands for are extremely important and his character deserves the emphasis of having its own page. . User:One1111 12:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose: While I understand why one would want to merge the two, Atticus truly is a notable character, and has indeed become part of Western popular culture. Celestialwarden11 (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose: Atticus Finch is a major literary and cinematic character whose notability is so entrenched that he is taught about in law classes. If Indiana Jones warrants his own article, so does Atticus Finch (who was voted a more popular hero, after all). If you can't do justice to Atticus Finch within the basic format of the Characters section of To Kill a Mockingbird, which you can't, then he needs his own page. This is an informative page that should not be pared away for the simple expedience of merging; struggle for more reliable, sourced information, not less. The Cap'n (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"Completely abstains from violence"

I think it's a little misleading to say that Atticus completely abstains from violence--after all, he shoots the rabid dog and breaks his glasses while doing so, in a scene that has been interpreted (I think by Lisa Simpson, though I can't find a quotation) as an allegorical representation of the violence inherent even in the most civilized of us. Moreover, some people might think that killing an animal--even a rabid one--is a violent act.

The above is certainly true, but the novel goes to lengths to demonstrate that Atticus doesn't enjoy causing violence (even though he's said to be quite handy with a firearm) and only consents to killing the dog when it's clear there's no other practical solution. He keeps his impressive shooting abilities on the DL for similar reasons. I can't remember if it's an explicit attempt on his part to attempt to en-culture an attitude of nonviolence in his progeny, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.224.139 (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Interestingly, too, George Bailey only abstains from violence because he *can't*, right--he had that problem with his lung he got after saving his brother as a youth, giving the *brother* a chance to become a war hero!)

(But this is a quibble; certainly the spirit of the paragraph is apt.) 152.2.205.209 00:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LEGAL TIMES capitalization?

should "Legal Times" be in all caps? because its not capitalized here http://www.mondotimes.com/1/world/us/51/474/6775 although im not sure its the same magazine 24.17.211.150 (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, either, sorry... ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Lee's watch

According to the current text, Peck wore Harper Lee's father's watch during the courtroom scenes. The dvd commentary says it was a comparable watch, but not the same. Does this qualify as a good source? 62.131.103.236 (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go Set a Watchman

Should what's being reported about the way Atticus Finch is portrayed in Go Set a Watchman be added to the article now, or should it be added when the book comes out. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever, it should make clear that it's a different character. The older man in the older book is not what the man in the other one became; the book is NOT a sequel but an unpublished earlier novel with different characters. 81.144.173.17 (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]