Talk:A Beautiful Mind (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article A Beautiful Mind (film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Good article nomination successful[edit]

Congratulations, this article meets all of the GA criteria. My only suggestion is that, if you wish to improve the article further, then the lead could be expanded and a few more references added. I wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wheeler-Lab/Lincon-Lab[edit]

While there is no such thing as Wheeler-lab there is Lincon-Lab at M.I.T. which focuses only on defence related stuff, and is thus very clearly the inspiration for "Wheeler.Lab". So maybe this should be mentioned in the article- where it curently lastes that there is no such thing as Wheeler-Lab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.74.50 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Game-playing[edit]

I removed the following paragraph from the historical divergence section, because it is unclear, and the sources need to be clarified. Does anyone have any idea what this is about? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

During graduate school, it appears in the movie that Nash was averse to game playing, when, in fact, according to Nasar's biography, he spent many hours playing games and even created a new game called "John" or "Nash" (Hex). The game was somewhat similar to Go, but the shape of the squares became hexagons. The game, somewhat in conflict with the movie's mathematical point, was not one in which "nobody wins," but was "a zero-sum two-person game with perfect information in which one player always has a winning strategy" (p. 77).[clarification needed] Though this game was not shown in the film's theatrical cut, a deleted scene shows Nash inventing the game and showing it off to his friends at Princeton.
Martin Gardner's Mathematical Games column in Scientific American (later collected in book form) covered the invention of Hex by Nash in some detail. It is not very similar to GO, it is a game in which each side attempts to create a connected path form one side of the board to another. One player tries to go from right to left (or east to west), and the other from top to bottom (or north to south). The playing spaces are hexagons rather than squares. One player must win, and indeed it can easily be proven that the first player has a winning strategy, although no one knows what it is (or didn't when I last read up on this, perhaps it has been found). The game was originally called "Nash" or "John", the latter a pun because the hexagonal tiles in the public restrooms at Princeton (and many other places) suggest the playing board for Hex (as it was later known). I don't have sources at hand for this, but it can easily be sourced. Nash was by several accounts an avid player of games. DES (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with A Beautiful Mind (soundtrack)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to merge Orlady (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This soundtrack may be notable by awards and critical reaction. However, the soundtrack article is small enough to fit into the film article without repetition. Shall we use WP:N and WP:NMUSIC to object or be in favor of the merger? Not all "notable" subtopics guarantee a stand-alone article. The soundtrack is part of the film, and I'm unsure why it should be treated as independent from the film. George Ho (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The article of the film soundtrack, A Beautiful Mind, was expanded into what it is right now. Per WP:N, even when notable, the subtopic may not guarantee a stand-alone article. As the article currently stands, is it mergeable to the film article? --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge I stumbled upon the film score article by accident and expanded it from its previous awful stub-y state. George already knows my opinion on this, but for anyone else reading: while I did not create this article, I believe that there is enough secondary coverage out there to make it a notable topic (major awards, critical reception, etc). And while the parent article is not completed, I think it's long enough to render a pure merge difficult. And if this were merged, what would stop other film score articles (most of which are less notable) from being merged into their parent articles? I'd be interested to hear other opinions. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 22:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. I don't see any substantial reason for the merge. This soundtrack's notability is now clear, and in light of the huge number of other albums at Category:Film soundtracks that (correctly) have their own articles, I don't think that customary style or other considerations would militate in favor of a merger. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge there's simply no reason to. theonesean 00:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not recipient of any Nobel Prize[edit]

Nash did not win any Nobel Prize!! it is really annoying how often this wrong information is mentioned in this article. Nash won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics, that has been created by the Swedish Bank Sverige Riksbank and is awarded together with the Nobel Prizes. It is however not recognised as a Nobel prize, and btw heavily criticised for misusing Nobels Name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.213.235 (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

An interesting Wikipedia page is Nobel_Prize_controversies -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Alan Turing house[edit]

Is the English-version forbidden is to say that the Alan Turing house is a bit 'lived down'? Watch the actor blondie in the film walking in the barn ! 79.234.234.6 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Anti-semitism[edit]

While the film's basis is Sylvia Nasar's biography, it does not mention Nash's hallucinations as being antisemitic - as they were - instead substitute it for anti-communistic views. Generally, any mention of criticism on this movie, e.g. that it shows Nash in all too good light and omits any negative facts from his life, falls short. In pages in other languages, the film is reviewed with a lot less bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.213.235 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Who's to say? The article here read fine to me. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in A Beautiful Mind (film)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of A Beautiful Mind (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "imdb":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 21:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)