Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre 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.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles
Really? A relatively minor critic like James Berardinelli gets an entire paragraph and we've nothing from any major US paper except the NY Times? Nothing from a major trade like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter? That has to be trimmed and other critics brought in. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've added the HR review and trimmed Beradineli, for a start. I'm also unconvinced about the final paragraph, with the long quote from the scholar. Not sure it belongs here and it looks like undue weight. Popcornduff (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you can probably tell from the talk-page section immediately above this, I don't think that scholarly quote adds anything. It doesn't really say anything trenchant or significant and just pushes a pet theory. I also have COI concerns about it, but that's just a hunch. I'd certainly support removal. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retroactively agree with the toasting! --SubSeven (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2016
I think that removing the Hollis paragraph was justified. It was not the first scholarly review of The H8ful 8 - there are two articles on the Conversation and one in Senses of Cinema - both of which are academic journals - which only print material from people employed on faculty or as research students of actual Universities or in rare cases people with equivalent expertise - that predate the Hollis article by months and discuss the film in as much or even more detail as Hollis - so nothing is particularly notable about her review. It does not add anything that was not already under discussion in the racial section of the article and the original is very brief - in fact virtually the whole of the article was posted into Wikipedia Bebe Jumeau (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Cast section in the article lists 13 characters and their actors. There are two more characters in the film:
two employees of Minnie, I guess. One man, whose job appears to be groom or stablehand, and a young girl named, I believe, Jemma, working inside the haberdashery. (plucking a chicken and then getting jelly beans down from a shelf for "Oswaldo Mobray"). Jemma could be a daughter or relative of Minnie; both these characters are black. They are small parts, but not smaller than Ed or Jody.Neurodog (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an editor of this article may find the following of interest.
The protracted mechanics of the interplay required between Major Marquis Warren and John Ruth before the Major is allowed onto the stagecoach, a painstaking interplay which puts the developing story on hold (recalling the foot rub conference in Pulp Fiction), has a close precedent in Oedipus at Colonus by Sophocles (ll. 150–206), in which a long, drawn-out exchange regarding where precisely Oedipus is allowed to sit within a sacred spot is required before the developing story can continue.
Kakostratos (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
