Jump to content

Talk:Atticus Finch

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

Milton Dees

[edit]

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:

[edit]

-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

[edit]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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 - 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. 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]

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

  • 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]
  • 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"

[edit]

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]

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn 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

[edit]

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]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atticus Finch. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atticus_Finch&oldid=1195428509"