Talk:Million Dollar Baby

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Frowe, Helen (2009). "'I Can't Be Like This, Not After What I've Done': Million Dollar Baby and the Value of Human Lives". In Shapshay, Sandra (ed.). Bioethics at the Movies. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 242–255. ISBN 0801890772.
• Lutfiyya, Zana Marie; Schwartz, Karen D.; Hansen, Nancy (2009). "False Images: Reframing the End-of-Life Portrayal of Disability in Million Dollar Baby". In Shapshay, Sandra (ed.). Bioethics at the Movies. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 225–241. ISBN 0801890772.

Importance of article

This probably shouldn't be a stub, but I've never seen the movie, so there's not a lot I can add to it. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 00:55, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

For one, it contains next to nothing on the plot. Cburnett 01:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once I get motivated, I'm going to fill in the plot section (unless someone beats me to it). – flamurai (t) 19:12, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

(SPOILERS)

This is a film about forwarding the cause of assisted suicide (eutha-nazia) and very little else. That should be clearly mentioned in the wiki article. Many think Eastwood is a nazi who wants all disabled exterminated just like the nazis did. Shame it got 5 oscars. I wonder what Mr. Superman would say about this movie?

Eutha-nazia? Sorry 'anonymous', but I think that this invented term is ignorant. Euthanasia means 'gentle death' and there was not very much gentle about the Nazi party. Please do not trivialise such a sensitive issue. There is absolutely no call to accuse Mr Eastwood of Nazism on the basis of this film. Oh! And by the way, his name was Christopher Reeve. --Rednaxela 23:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The best I can do is to point you towards http://www.rogerebert.com which features long articles discussing the controversy surrounding this film, that can explain it better then I could. Also remember that this film is a tragedy, in the end there is little to be uplifted about (one is dead, the other will be haunted for life). While we're at it, let's attack Shakespeare for his support of witchcraft and regicide. --Poorpete 21:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Religious fanatics... It's wonderful that we, the rest of the world, are superior to you, in any possible way. I won't argue nor discuss anything with you, as I'm above all of you. I pity you, though.

Restructure

I began to restructure the page in an attempt to make it clearer. The pictures need to be moved, but that's not my area of expertise. --Jacquelyn Marie 20:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Title

I'm curious as to what the name means. I know it came from a story out of a book with the same title, but why was this story called "Million Dollar Baby"? Drop me a line on my talk page if anyone knows. Thanks. David Bergan 05:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The main character (Hillary Swank) wanted to make a million dollars in order to buy a house.

Actually, the book was called "Rope Burns". It was only re-released as "Million Dollar Baby" after the film had been released. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Slight clarification. The short story upon which the film is based is "Million Dollar Baby," originally from a book of short stories called "Rope Burns" by F. X. Toole. There is also a short story called "Rope Burns" in the same book.

Ronald Reagan

There should be a redirect to the production Ronald Reagan was involved in. It happens to have the name "Million Dollar Baby" in it's title. A redirect link is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Great Myth of Pulling the Plug

The ending of this film is based on a common myth that Hollywood often uses for dramatic purposes. The myth is that a person of sound mind cannot order a hospital to stop life-saving treatment. In fact, if you are awake and aware enough to tell a friend to pull your plug, you can simply order the hospital to do so and they must comply. This is not and has never been considered a form of suicide. It is simply refusal of treatment, which anyone may do at any time unless they're declared incompetent by a court. You can also specify the parameters of care you want and do not want imposed on you should you be unable to communicate your wishes. This is called a "living will."

This may be true, but do you believe that the characters would know this. The characters are not stupid, but they are neither educated nor sophisticated. They probably did not know about living wills. They probably did not know that a person is perfectly capable of living a happy life as a quadriplegic. They clearly did not realize that Maggie was receiving substandard care. In my opinion, part of the brilliance of the film comes from the fact that I can see that the characters are making poor choices, but I can also understand why they made those choices.

Also, I am a psychologist, not a lawyer, so I do not know the legal definition of "sound mind." However, I do believe that Maggie was depressed and that her depression clouded her judgment. My guess is that there probably was enough evidence of impaired judgment for lawyers representing Christian groups or the boxer who injured her to tie the case up in courts for a long time. --66.74.140.31 18:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The ending wasn't about "pulling the plug", it was baout euthinasia. Ace-o-aces 14:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because it was legal for Maggie to refuse treatment, it doesn't follow that the nurses would necessarily comply with the refusal. What if the nurses conspired to continue the treatment against Maggie's will? How could Maggie force the nurse to remove the respirator? She might have demanded it, and the nurse could simply have refused. That might have been illegal for the nurse, but some people are like that, especially some strongly religious individuals. Another possibility is that Maggie might have been embarassed to ask the nurse, because it would have made her look like a quitter. Asking a stranger to kill you would be very awkward, and she simply wanted Frank to do it because she trusted him.(Kenect2 07:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Script

I have removed an anonymous addition to this page. It purported to be the script of the film, but has no place here. Rednaxela 00:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Boxer who caused the injury

I'd expect that in reality they'd not just be disqualified, but be permanently barred from boxing and would also be likely to face criminal charges.

The punishment for premeditated murder is life in prison or the death penalty. Has that stopped murder yet? Olstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.203.32 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no discussion over Billie's foul when there should be. The movie should have stripped the character of the title and sent to prison as an example to bad sportmanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.106.1 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Maggie's age

It's been several months since I saw this movie, but wasn't Maggie 33? The article says she was 31. Slap me if I'm wrong...

Oh, and hi Mikhail!

TJSwoboda 02:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Near the beginning of the movie, she says that her age is 31. Then, during the birthday scene with Morgan Freeman, she says that she is turning 32. SweetP112 15:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, she first appeared at the gym at 31. Dunn agreed to be her trainer when she turned 32. The cupcake scene was exactly one year after that, when she turned 33. --Happy 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sports movies

Trivia Only the second movie related to sports to win an Academy Award for Best Picture...the first was Rocky (1976).

Third. The second was Chariots of Fire--Syd Henderson 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Myth of pulling the plug section

I added a POV tag to that section...as it stands, the section definitely violates Wikipedia's neutral POV policy, especially without any sources. Gzkn 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot

The first paragraph in this section, prior to the spoiler warning, seems like a summary of the film and does contain spoilers - • The Giant Puffin • 23:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned in the article that Roger Ebert used a spoiler warning when describing the plot of the film. --Pixelface 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The opinions of critics do not belong a Plot section, which exists simply to relate the plot. Marc Shepherd 14:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This does look to me as if it belongs, if anywhere, on Ebert's own article. It is one critic's opinion on a subject only tangentially related to the plot of this movie. As such I think it looks out of place in the plot summary. --Tony Sidaway 07:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#INFO says "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." Citing interpretations by film critics that certain information may ruin a film is sourced analysis. It is directly related to the plot of the film. Would you like me to cite more reliable sources that use spoiler warnings? --Pixelface 10:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That covers articles, yes - I've yet to see a guideline or policy page that advocates making the plot section anything other than a plot summary. Then again, I've yet to see one that advocates for the purity of the plot section either. That said, the single sentence at the start of the plot section lacks any contextual ors tylistic links with the rest of the section. If we want to rewrite the plot section entirely to remain contextual throughout, that would probably be good - I did something similar a while back on The Daleks. But the entire section would need to be rewritten to integrate the real-world perspective - not just a single sentence at the top. -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, it would be worth having a glance over the Manual of Style for Films, which briefly covers this subject too. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 21:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Spoiler alerts section with 8 citations to the article. --Pixelface (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an excellent section, but the article needed to be reorganized to give it better context. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Interpretations by reliable sources that a plot description should be preceded by a spoiler alert is only in context when presented before a plot description. The Spoiler alerts section has nothing to do with an evaluation of whether a film is good or not, and doesn't belong in the Critical reception section. I've reverted your re-organization and removed the Plot section because it appears to be original research. --Pixelface (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This has now turned into plain vandalism. It is widely accepted that an article on a fictional work may use the work itself as the source of the plot summary. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Removing unsourced material is not vandalism. I challenge the Plot section because I think it's all original research. The burden of evidence is on you Marc. --Pixelface (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface, WP:V only states that unverifiable information can be removed. It doesn't always have to be sourced, though sources are encouraged in the event the verifiability of the information is challenged. However, the plot section can be verified by watching the film, thus removing it because there is no sources isn't legitimate grounds to remove it. --Farix (Talk) 17:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I challenge the Plot section. Any material challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. If you add or restore it back to the article, the burden of evidence is on you. --Pixelface (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

On what bases do you challenge the verifiability of the plot section? Is it inaccurate to what the view see in the film? If so, explain the inaccuracies, or better yet fix the inaccuracies. You earlier claimed it to be original research. On what bases do you make that claim? However, removing a plot section is not the way to challenge its verifiability. That is what cleanup tags such as {{unreferenced}} and {{original research}} are for. --Farix (Talk) 17:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It has no citations. It appears to be original research. I don't have to tag it. I am free to remove it. You've put in back in the article (still with no citations) so I've tagged it as original research. I don't have to provide citations for that material. The editor who wishes to add or restore the material does. The burden of evidence is on them. --Pixelface (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't need a citation since the work is being referenced directly, and one should use a bit of common sense. But I've added the citation anyways to stop this stupid edit war. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The {{cite video}} template does not provide any verification that the editors who wrote the plot summary actually watched the video. That is unverifiable. So I've added {{verify source}} tags to the Plot section. If the material hasn't been previously published, it's original research. --Pixelface (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has thousands of articles on fictional works, where the work itself is the source of the plot summary. Wikipedia policies permit this, and I know that Pixelface is aware of it, because I can see that he has edited many of those articles himself. So, what is the purpose of this challenge??? Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The material has no citations. Fictional works don't write plot summaries. Editors do. And editors are not reliable sources. Editors cannot cite themselves. If the material hasn't been previously published, Wikipedia is not the first place to publish it. If you want the material in the article, cite a reliable source. --Pixelface (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that Farix has added a citation. According to WP:MOSFILM:

Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film. An exception to this rule may be films containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources.

This statement has been there for a long time, and until now no editor seems to have objected that it violated WP:NOR or WP:V. If that's your current view, I suggest that you bring it up on that guideline's talk page.

I suspect that you are confusing original research and research. Wikipedia couldn't exist if editors were not permitted to look at sources and then write up a summary of what they saw. Viewing a film is clearly not original, when millions of people have done the same. I suspect that you are also confusing original research and original writing. Although the research cannot be original, the writing certainly can be. If Wikipedia could not include original writing, then what kind of articles could we have? Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that the style guide for films says that. A film is a source. But films don't write plot summaries. Editors do. When an editor views a film and reports on what they see, they become a secondary source. Editors cannot cite themselves. Editors are not reliable sources. I am not confusing original research with research. The policy on no original research says "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." If that plot description has not been previously published and editors wrote it after watching the film, it's original research. Viewing a film is not original, but that plot description appears to be. Wikipedia articles should only contain previously published material. --Pixelface (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The plot has been published, so a summery of the plot would not fall under original research. Primary sources are considered reliable in this case, just like a press release is a reliable source regarding statements made by the company releasing the press released made in the it. --Farix (Talk) 19:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That plot description has been published where? --Pixelface (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I only put the citation up because Pixelface was being a WP:DICK on insisting that the plot summery is original research because it didn't have a citation. If that is his only bases for calling it original research, then it is a groundless one. WP:MOSFILM is actually using common senses in stating that a plot summery doesn't need a citation since the source of the summery is obviously the work itself. --Farix (Talk) 18:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So articles don't require citations because readers can just check information themselves? The film didn't write the plot description. Who's the source of the plot description? Are they reliable? --Pixelface (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:V only requires that information to be verifiable. Having a citation only helps establish verifiability, but is not a requirement, especially when one can use common sense. When a film is published, the the plot of the film is published as well since you can't have a film without a plot. And finally, providing a summery of published sources is not a form of original research. If it was, then we would have to delete everything off of Wikipedia since all of its contents are a summeries of published works. --Farix (Talk) 19:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, verifiable. WP:V says ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." The plot description currently in the article could be nonsense, it could be accurate. Without a citation from a reliable source, a reader has no way of knowing if it's accurate or not. The film is a source, yes, but it's obvious that the film did not write that plot description. That plot description has not been previously published outside of Wikipedia. The film is not a reliable source independent of the subject. The film is the actual subject of the article. You have not shown that the plot description has been previously published. If films are their own source and film articles don't require any citations because it's assumed that the film is the source of all statements, editors could add whatever nonsense they wanted to an article. And nobody could remove it because the film is the source. And there is no common sense. --Pixelface (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Come down off the Reichstag and get out of the Spidey-suit. --Farix (Talk) 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How about you provide some proof that the editors that wrote the plot description actually watched the film. --Pixelface (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you actually read WP:NOR, particularly the section covering the three types of sources. (WP:PSTS) So long as the plot summery contains descriptive claims of the plot whose accuracy and relevance of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge (ie. one can rent the DVD and watch it), and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, there is no problem using the film as a primary source. The editors doesn't have to prove he or she watched the film. In fact, it doesn't matter if the editor saw the film. The film itself should prove if what the editor wrote about the plot was accurate. Suggesting that the editor is lying about seeing the film without first checking the source is an assumption of bad faith. --Farix (Talk) 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PSTS says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." That plot description has not been previously published by a reliable source. I'm not suggesting the editors who wrote it are lying, but I have no reason to trust that material if it has no citation. You added a citation but you didn't write the plot summary based on that citation. I don't have to prove anything. You do. --Pixelface (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, the section now has a citation. Therefore neither the section nor the citation can be removed unless you can prove that the citation is invalid, irrelevant, or POV. And frankly, I don't think either one of those can come close to applying. The only thing that will happen is to the plot summery is correcting any information that is not reflected in the source cited. --Farix (Talk) 22:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You might as well cite a blog for the plot summary. Blogs are not reliable sources and neither are editors' own personal observations. I know the citation is invalid. You didn't write that section and you assumed the people who wrote the plot summary wrote it based on that citation. Do you have any proof of that? --Pixelface (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There's no need for a citation for Plot sections. They're inherently cited, being the source of the topic itself. This has been the approach of WikiProject Films, and the only concern about such sections is ensuring neutrality in the writing. Please do not mark such removals as vandalism -- this is a content dispute and does not warrant such assumptions of bad faith. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So Plot sections are exempt from policy now? Saying Plot sections are inherently cited is like saying all the information in the Microsoft article is inherently cited. Who said it? Where was it previously published? A style guide does not trump policy. --Pixelface (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the citation because Pixelface insisted on its presents earlier. I agree that the citation is largely unnecessary, but it also doesn't harm the article with its presence. And yes, him removing the citation after just demanding one is vandalism. --Farix (Talk) 22:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the plot summary needs to cite secondary sources. Wikipedia articles are not the place for editors to insert their own personal observations. Citation are not unnecessary. The policy on no original research says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources." The {{cite video}} template is no better than a citation to a blog or Google Groups or a GeoCities page. Where has that plot summary been previously published? --Pixelface (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Farix, adding a citation does not immediately resolve the issue. Pixelface has his own concerns about such consolidation of a primary source being originally derived, but the fact is that film articles' plot summaries do not require citations, being inherently cited. I would suggest discussing further with Pixelface about the merits of writing plot summaries rather than apply this quickie solution. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It has to be shown that the plot summary has been previously published. The {{cite video}} template may just as well be replaced with <ref>I'm watching the DVD right now</ref>. It's useless. Anyone can start a blog and say they watched a film and anyone can write a plot summary on Wikipedia, but blogs and editors are not reliable sources. If TheFarix wrote the plot description, I might tend to trust the citation more, but TheFarix did not. TheFarix assumed it was written by editors who watched film. Articles are not for editors to insert their own personal observations. --Pixelface (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many times you beat your chest and shout "no secondary sources = original research" will not make the statement true or accepted on Wikipedia. Especially when it has been soundly rejected here, at the Village Pump, at WP:MOSFILM, and most important of all, at WP:NOR as well. Even WP:NOT has rejected that argument already. WP:NOR also does state that using primary sources is fine so long as they are used to "make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and relevance of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" and "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". WP:NOR even goes on to state that films are primary sources. But at no point does WP:NOT state that using primary sources is original research so long as it is used to source descriptive information.

Also, {{cite video}} is a perfectly valid citation template used in over 1200 articles. But if you true believe that videoes or films are no more a reliable source then blogs or forum posts, then put the template up for deletion. I will say that it will go no further then the deletion attempt of {{cite episode}} were the person who nominated it used the nearly same arguments you are using against {{cite video}}. --Farix (Talk) 18:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources." The film is not a reliable source on itself. The film is not a third party source. The film did not write the plot summary. The film does not contain any of the text in the plot summary. MOS:FILM is a guideline and says one thing, but it contradicts WP:RS which is a guideline that says articles need third party sources. And that bit you quote from WP:OR, WP:PSTS is currently under dispute. The {{cite video}} template is no better than a blog. Perhaps I will nominate it for deletion. But not today. The {{cite video}} template offers no proof that statements were previously published. On previous articles I have worked on, other editors did not accept the fictional work as a source. Editors watching it and putting their own personal observations into the article was called original research. I didn't come up with the idea that information has to be previously published. You put the {{cite video}} template in the article but you didn't write that section based on that citation. You don't know what the editors wrote it from. The plot summary needs be verifiable, meaning "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." If you're not going to provide any secondary sources, I'll find some myself and rewrite the plot summary based on them. --Pixelface (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How many times does it have to be said that the community has rejected your position? Almost no one agrees that using the film to construct a descriptive summery of the film's plot is original research and that the film is not a reliable source. In fact, they have said the exact opposite. Even WP:NOT doesn't support your position. Also, the so-called dispute on the section about the three types of sources was about the exact wording and organization of the entire section and not the section's intent. In fact, the wording I quoted to you has been in WP:NOR in one form or another since August of 2005, so it clearly has consensus support.

Also the plot is easily verifiable by readers by watching the movie, either by going to the theater or renting/buying the DVD. So your argument there is nothing more then a red herring. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the community has rejected my position. The guideline on writing about fiction says "Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research." If material hasn't been previously published, it's original research. The guideline on reliable sources says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The film is not a third-party source. And "verifiable" does not mean that a reader can go rent a DVD. On Wikipedia, "verifiable" means "that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Readers should not have to watch a film to verify content in an article. Readers could call Bill Gates on the telephone to find out his wife's birthday, but they shouldn't have to if a third party has already published that information. --Pixelface (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would remove the citation. There are probably thousands of Wikipedia articles with plot summaries sourced from the work itself. I've never seen an article where the plot summary ends with a footnote to the work. On top of that, the editor for whose benefit it was added doesn't even agree this is a legitimate solution. It strikes me as a "solution in search of a problem".

On top of that, I am now dubious of that editor's good faith. He has edited scores of film articles with plot summaries like this one, and he never raised the issue before, as far as I'm aware. All of a sudden, he "discovers" that the plot summary in one article is purportedly original research?? Gimme a break. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because other articles do it doesn't mean this article should. I don't have to tag every unsourced plot summary I see with {{Original Research}}. I tagged this article. The guideline on writing about fiction says "Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research" and "All included information needs to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources." Why are you defending unsourced material? --Pixelface (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of providing the citation was because it completely undermined Pixelface's argument that the plot summery was original research because it had no citations. The citation has forced Pixelface to give up that silly, groundless argument for one that was even sillier and just as groundless. --Farix (Talk) 23:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The citation you provided is no better than a citation to Google Groups or a blog. The editors who wrote the plot summary didn't cite their sources so why are you assuming which sources they used? The burden of evidence is on you, not me. You have to show that the plot summary has been previously published outside of Wikipedia. Where in the film did that text appear? --Pixelface (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I edited this article yesterday so this discussion has made it onto my watchlist. A plot summary is not original research because whether the summary includes lots of detail or very little detail, it does not contain any new detail. A summary, by its nature is not original as it is a retelling. It does not introduce new ideas, conclusions, theories, etc. At most it can be described as a cropping of the original work, but it does not add anything or change anything. The fact that it does not add anything means that if a source is required, a source to the material in question is acceptable. A plot summary is not an interpretation of the story, merely a shortened version, thus it is still verifiable using the source media as it is not fundamentally different from it. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A plot summary that does not cite secondary sources is original research. The policy on no original research says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources." Wikipedia articles are not places for editors to insert their own personal observations — that would be original research. The plot summary may be entirely accurate, but the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The guideline on writing about fiction says "Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research" and "All included information needs to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources." If a plot summary does not cite secondary sources and if the text of the plot summary did not appear in the film, the film is not the source for the plot summary, the editors who wrote it are the source, and editors are not reliable sources and editors cannot cite themselves. The plot summary needs to be previously published outside of Wikipedia before it can appear on Wikipedia. Wikiality does not make the policy on verifiability and no original research and the guideline on reliable sources invalid. --Pixelface (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Published" is semantics -- an editor would take a length of time to watch a film just like reading that film's screenplay to consolidate the information into a plot summary. The film has issued into the public eye by distributors. Per WP:PSTS, it's acceptable to "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and relevance of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge", and examples include "artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs". There's no need to cite the source, which is already detailed in the Infobox Film template and the lead section. It would be appropriate to cite primary sources more specifically regarding a comic book character due to separate issues, but with film articles like this, there's only one primary source being utilized. If Superman #1 had its own article for whatever reason, it wouldn't be necessary to cite what the topic is directly related to. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A plot summary is not an observation or interpretation, it is a description. Original research is when the editor is adding their own or unpublished conclusion to what something means. A plot summary includes only what is in the plot and therefore not original research. For it to be original, you must show that it is actually adding something new. You can look at a plot summary and the movie and see that it is describing the movie. Description is not original research and if you required a secondary source for every description on Wikipedia you'd kill the project, because there aren't published sources describing everything in the detail that an encyclopedia requires. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary appears to have been written based on editors' own personal observations. Personal observations by editors don't belong in articles. Editors are supposed to collate previously published information. I don't have to show anything. The burden of evidence is on the editor who wishes to add or restore material. They have to show that the plot has been described by other people outside Wikipedia and cite those people so readers can verify the description has been previously published. The policy on no original research says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources..." I'm not trying to kill the project, I'm talking about one section in this article. The movie isn't that old. Surely a reliable source has described the plot. The plot summary should cite them and be written based on that reliable source. --Pixelface (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

By the same argument, even referencing a printed (or web-published) source wouldn't be valid since mention of them in an article is "based on editors' own personal observations." That is, they reproduce what they personally view of the source; the source itself isn't directly viewable in the article. So, based on that logic, no source could be used!
Jim Dunning | talk 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor's personal observations don't belong in articles. Citing what has already been published by third-party sources is not the same thing. Referring to what has already been published has always been valid on Wikipedia. Selecting which sources to highlight is about representing significant views as fairly as possible. --Pixelface (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pixel, if you actually believe what you are saying, then why aren't you routinely deleting (or "tagging") the plot summary in every article on a fictional subject? There are thousands of them in Wikipedia, and overwhelmingly they cite no reference other than the implied reference of the work itself. Why aren't you tagging them? For that matter, why aren't other editors tagging them?

That answer, of course, is that you are either wrong, or you are merely disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If these plot summaries violated WP:V or WP:NOR, surely someone would have spoken up before now. An interpretation of these policies that instantly invalidates thousands of articles is very likely an incorrect interpretation. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to tag them. I believe in giving editors time to provide citations — there is no deadline. But since you're being a dick about this, I see no reason to be lenient in this case. I'm not disrupting anything. I'm following policy. MOS:FILM may say the film is the source, but that contradicts the guideline on reliable sources which says we need a third-party source. The film is not a third-party source. The guideline on writing about fiction says "Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research" There is currently alot of discussion at WT:NOR about primary sources and original research, and even talk of merging the guideline on reliable sources into WP:V. Over a year ago, other editors were telling me that the fictional work itself is not acceptable as a source. So I don't think I've made an incorrect interpretation of policy. --Pixelface (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The official policy WP:NOR, of which WP:RS compliments, says you can use a primary source when used for descriptions and a description does not qualify as original research. A description of the plot is not an observation (in the context of OR, it does involve literally observing) or an interpretation of the film. That is why the primary source is reliable and that's why MOS:FILM allows the film as a source. A primary source is not acceptable if being used to prove, or make an observation or theory. Such as "Lisa Simpson isn't a good vegetarian because she likes the smell of cooked Lobster, as seen in Lisa Gets an "A"." That's where I believe you're making the misinterpretation of the reliable source guideline. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think descriptions written by editors based on their own personal research do qualify as original research. If I go outside and look at an ant and go to the ant article and describe what I've seen, that's original research. Unless my observations have been previously published, it's original research. WP:PSTS does says that descriptive claims are allowed but that whole section of WP:OR is currently disputed. It is also original research to use a primary source to prove an unpublished theory, yes. But personal observations by editors don't belong in articles. Be it Million Dollar Baby or Cillian Murphy or Ordinances of 1311. The policy on no original research says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources." I suppose a film is reliable, but the editors observing that film are not. --Pixelface (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia will always have some level of original material made by the editors within it, but it this is not original research. You cannot take the editor out of the Wikipedia content as it is necessary to build the encyclopedia. A large part of the well sourced information on Wikipedia requires some summary and editorial decision by the editors. It is more apparent in plot summaries as they're larger sections with a single source, but I'm sure if you looked all over Wikipedia, you'll find that many of the sentences and paragraphs containing sourced information could be written in a thousand different ways, and it's down to the editor adding that information to choose how to word it. Wikipedia's policies are built using consensus, and the current consensus with plot summaries is that they are not original research as they are purely descriptive, and to allow them in articles. The sections are hardly ever removed as original research, in fact this is the first time I've ever heard of a challenge to one. In theory, if consensus was to change and plot summaries were required to have been published previously, it would likely mean that there would be very few plot summaries on Wikipedia. This is because very few reviews and write-ups are published using a free license. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot copy its sources exactly (unless they are in the public domain, or the copying is so limited that a fair-use exception applies). Therefore, any plot summary necessarily requires editorial judgment, selectivity, and original writing. Pixelface, unfortunately, is confusing original research with plain old research. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[Undent] Pixel, the bottom line — which you have yet to deny — is that if your interpretation of WP:NOR is correct, thousands of Wikipedia articles have policy-violating plot summaries, since the situation in this article is the norm: namely, that the plot summary has been compiled by an editor, with no other reference but the work itself.

There is no shortage of editors around here who quote policies and aggressively edit articles based upon them. What, then, is the probability that a practice that blatantly violates WP:NOR would have for so long endured without, as far as I am aware, any substantial opposition?

Clearly there is no policy stating that an article about a work of fiction cannot include a plot summary sourced from the work itself. If such a policy existed, you would be able to quote it to us. Instead, you are quoting policies and interpreting them to produce a result that (if the community accepted it) would invalidate thousands of articles.

The community is not likely to adopt such an interpretation. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR says original research refers to "unpublished facts" and says "Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts" and "Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources." WP:V says "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." WP:V also says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." and "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." WP:V also says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The guideline on reliable sources says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." and "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." The problem is that the film is not the only source, the editor writing the plot summary based on what they saw in the film is also a source. And editors are not reliable sources. Editors cannot cite themselves. And if thousands of articles have policy-violating plot summaries, I don't care. Maybe Tony Sidaway and David Gerard could use AWB and remove all of them. If all of the plot summaries are not put back into the articles, surely such edits would have consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you actually believe all of this (which I doubt), feel free to start a mediation case. Marc Shepherd (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal observations

If personal observations are acceptable for writing plot summaries, I guess I'll watch the film and rewrite the Plot section based on my personal observations. Is that okay with everyone? --Pixelface (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you believe the current version could be improved, by all means do so. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But also remember that one of the safeguards WP uses to ensure the plot description is objective and accurate is Consensus, so one editor's description of the story will not have more weight than another's. Don't expect to not have your contributions reviewed and edited by your colleagues.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Big Willie Little

Shouldn't Mike Colter's character (Big Willie Little) be mentioned? Badagnani 00:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not realy. He was part of the side story that was taking place during the main storyline. It might be interesting and all but you take him out all together and no aspect of the main storyline is affected. Olstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.203.32 (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clint eastwood old.jpg

Image:Clint eastwood old.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any sexy time fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this film a remake?

Does this film have any association with the 1941 film "Million Dollar Baby"? (starring Ronald Reagan). The title seams too much for coincidence. Perhaps there should be a redirect or mention of it in the article?--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 03:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the third film of that title. The three films all have completely distinct settings, premises, and plots. Recalling Alice Cooper's similarly-titled 1973 album. Billion Dollar Babies, I suggest that the title may have originated in a common phrase. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler debate section has to go!

The section mentioning some debate about reviewers including or not including spoilers in their reviews adds no value to the article. Perhaps a few lines referencing what some perceived as a major plot twist is appropriate, but what point does this section serve? The article is about the film, not film reviewing practices.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Adds no value? It's all cited. Those are significant views. Yes, this article is about the film. And that section highlights interepretations of the plot by reliable sources. I mention one person and it's not enough. I mention nine people and it's too many? --Pixelface (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that an unusually high number of critics mentioned this, which therefore makes it notable. The question is whether the section has been given undue weight. The problem is that the "Critical reception" section is anemic, as is typical for Wikipedia articles about fairly recent works. If "Critical reception" were filled in properly, the spoiler debate would perhaps no longer look so ridiculously out-sized.

I would be more inclined to focus on adding what is missing, than on deleting what is there. After the article reaches a more finished state, it will be easier to determine if the spoiler section really deserves the prominence it now has. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So now it's too long? I provided too many citations? Too many critics gave spoiler warnings? --Pixelface (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. After reading the relevant articles, it's clear that the issue isn't really about spoilers, but the importance to many people of the ending's events. The spoiler "debate" is not specific to this film, but the fact that the euthanasia element is significant to many is, as evidenced by reviewers who agonized over whether to discuss the theme early or after most of the public had seen the film.

This article gives too much attention to the to-spoil-or-not-to-spoil topic per se, and would be better served focusing on the true issue of the euthansia theme and its possible inconsistency with themes in the film.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't name the section Spoiler debate. TheFarix did. I named it Spoiler alerts because it contains notable interpretations of the plot that preceded any description of the plot, and it belongs before the Plot section in the article to keep those interpretations in context. The issue is about spoilers. Too much attention? Too many critics used spoiler warnings, is that what you're saying? --Pixelface (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

On a re-reading, the section appears to be mis-named, because there is hardly anyone on the other side of the 'debate'. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

At first blush this film could be grouped with other works like The Sixth Sense and The Crying Game where giving away the ending could ruin the viewing experience. Million Dollar Baby, however, gets into this issue not so much about the ending being a surprise or twist (it wasn't for many), but because the mercy killing is a hot-button and carries a lot of emotional/ethical weight with it. More specifically, many who felt strongly about this element of the story had difficulty discussing the issue without giving away the ending (okay: they found it impossible). Focusing on a "spoiler debate" in the article (and Shepard is right: is there really a debate?) distracts and detracts from the more notable issue of the euthanasia theme and the accompanying discussion.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"giving away the ending could ruin the viewing experience" That is exactly what several critics said about the film. You say the ending wasn't a surprise for many, but you'll have to cite a reliable source that says they expected it. Again, I didn't name the section Spoiler debate, another editor did. There was a strong difference of interpretation between Roger Ebert and Michael Medved as far as I can tell. The section doesn't detract from anything. It contains notable views, published in reliable sources. Other portions of the article already discuss the issues you mentioned. --Pixelface (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "spoiler debate" section per WP:WEIGHT. Giving 20% of the article over to a discussion of a very, very minor aspect of the film's reception is unacceptable, and I think in this case it's really been blown up due to internal Wikipedia discussions about the place of spoilers on Wikipedia, rather than the external statements, which seem to have been dredged up and plonked down on the article without regard to the inappropriate volume of content thus devoted to the issue. --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is laughable. I cite one reliable source that uses a spoiler warning and it's undue weight. I write a whole paragraph and it's undue weight. You say this is a "minor aspect" of the film's reception and yet I've found too many sources for you? If one person is too little and eight people are too much, how many sources should I cite? Four? --Pixelface (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, many of the sources reffed in the deleted section could be used for contributions to a discussion of the controversy the euthanasia element caused. Mention of the spoiler topic there would be of interest.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The euthanasia controversy is indeed the appropriate topic, in my opinion. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted section, shortened. I will de-quote it when I have more time, shortening it further. Concerns about weighting should be addressed by reducing the size of section, not eliminating it altogether. Strange that the huge list of awards (half the length) or the overlarge criticism section did not need re-weighing.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's still rather large, 20% of the article:

Spoiler debate

When describing the plot of the film, Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert gave a spoiler warning. He noted in his reviews the difficulty of discussing the film without discussing details of the plot, saying that even warning about spoilers would itself be a spoiler.(ref Roger Ebert (2004-12-14). ":: rogerebert.com :: Reviews :: Million Dollar Baby (xhtml)". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help))(ref Roger Ebert (2005-01-29). "Critics have no right to play spoiler". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) Susan Wloszczyna of USA Today said the film "packs a surprise plot twist" and said "spoilsports already have begun to leak details about this drama", saying "the urge to divulge the story's secrets will only grow worse when the film finally goes nationwide." Wloszczyna noted that David Thomson of The Independent "offered readers only a hint of the story basics" and said "most reviewers have coddled the sports saga with similar care..." Wloszczyna said Thomson said "My great wish always, which is difficult to achieve, is to go in knowing nothing about a film."(ref Susan Wloszczyna (2005-01-23). "USATODAY.com - 'Million Dollar' mystery". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help))

An editor's note appeared in an article by Jeffrey Overstreet of Christianity Today, "Many published reviews for this film—though not this one—reveal the surprising turn that the story takes in the third act, so, consumer beware. Knowing where the story is headed won't ruin the film for you, but it will significantly alter your experience."(ref Jeffrey Overstreet (2005-01-07). "Million Dollar Baby". Christianity Today. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) Mark Moring of Christianity Today said "Who wants to watch a movie when you know how it ends? We've actually had to wrestle with that question around here lately..." Moring said "We wondered if our "moral obligation" to warn Christians about the potentially disturbing subject matter somehow "trumped" our professional commitment to avoid plot spoilers—especially the worst plot spoiler of all: divulging the end. After some discussion, we agreed that the right decision was to not give away the end to Million Dollar Baby."(ref Mark Moring (2005-01-18). "Spoil the Ending?". Christianity Today. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help))

Film critic Debbie Schlussel gave a spoiler warning before discussing the plot of the film.(ref Debbie Schlussel (2005-01-10). ""Million Dollar Baby's" Multi-Million Dollar Rip-Off". DebbieSchlussel.com. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) Michael Atkinson of The Village Voice said the film had a "spoiler-spawning shift in narrative."(ref Michael Atkinson (2004-12-13). "Aging Bull". The Village Voice. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) Ian Grey of Baltimore City Paper said the last act seems to be from another film at first, and said "Naming this misfortune and its consequences, however, would be an unforgivable spoiler."(ref Ian Grey (2005-01-12). "Kid Gloves". Baltimore City Paper. Retrieved 2007-11-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help))

I think Jim has the right idea. Those commentators are being very coy about the reason for the warning, which is the euthanasia theme. We are under no requirement to share their coyness. --Tony Sidaway 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of them are, some of them aren't. We're in no place to judge. When de-quoted it will be shorter, and when there is a development section, and fuller cast and critical reception sections, it will probably be only 5-10% of the article.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some perspective from an editor who has a broader perspective on the issue. A single-issue editor will (naturally) always think their favorite hobby-horse is especially important. I'm persuaded that critics elevated the plot twist in this film to an unusual level of importance, but perhaps not quite to the level that spoiler-focused editors like to imagine. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the fact that reviewers and critics decided that (at least some of) the enjoyment of the film pivots around not knowing the ending beforehand deserves a mention, but not as an entire section. It'd be better presented within a reception section when commenting on the unexpected ending. I think the content should be less about the fact there was spoiler warnings, and more about how how critics saw the ending as important enough to not be spoilt. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nydas wrote: We're in no place to judge. Actually, we are in that position, and have no choice but to do so. You will note that there isn't a "No Judgment" policy. I'm not sure what kind of encyclopedia we could build if that were the case. Every Wikipedia article reflects editorial judgment about what material to include, how that material should be organized, and the weight each subtopic should receive. No article can avoid dependence on such judgments, unless we limit ourselves to articles quoted verbatim from external sources (clearly not an option).

As a consequence of this, even properly sourced material will sometimes be removed by consensus, not because it is false, but because it has been given undue emphasis. There's no exact formula that determines when this is the case. When the Wikipedia collaborative editing process works properly, there are usually enough eyes on an article to prevent an editor with a favorite "hobby-horse" from skewing the article in one direction. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

When you talk about editors with a favorite "hobby-horse", are you referring to your constant removal of spoiler warnings from articles? Are you referring to Tony Sidaway's constant removal of spoiler warnings from articles? Are you referring to Tony Sidaway's bot that scans every page for the word "spoiler"? Are you referring to previous statements made by TheFarix at WT:SPOILER? --Pixelface (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to all "hobby-horse" editors, of either persuasion. But Tony's practice, at least, has been ratified by community consensus (as Wikipedia defines it), whereas yours has not. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a no original research policy, which forbids trying to guess the 'real' motivations behind reviewers' writing.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I searched in vain for such a statement in WP:NOR. In any case, what is going on here is not guessing reviewers' motivations, but deciding how much weight their statements are due in the article. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It says we are to avoid advancing unpublished theories and interpretations. Such as the euthanasia theme being the 'reason' for the critic's spoiler warnings, as opposed to professional standards or the ususual extent of the plot twist.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we can never quote all the critics exactly — except to the limited extent permitted under fair use — anything we include will, of necessity, be both selective and interpretive. What we select and interpret, of course, must be reasonable given what the sources actually say. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

@Marc Shepherd, Nydas, Pixelface, BillPP, Tony Sidaway, and JimDunning: I don't know who's still around from this debate, but as a reader of this article, this section seemed clearly out of place and off-topic. The section is about an issue in film reviewing, not about Million Dollar Baby. I'm removing it, but figured I should let y'all know. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Condense awards section?

Anyone have some ideas on how the Awards section can be significantly condensed? The list is impressive, but my eyes glazed over after scrolling through just a few lines. Which ones would be good to include in a summary?
Jim Dunning | talk 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would look at the way it has been handled for other films that were big award-winners, such as Titanic (1997 film). Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was so impressed by all the work Troy34 did on the list that I didn't have the heart to remove it: it has excellent information in it. So I moved it to its own page.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That page was recently tagged with a {{prod}} template so I've merged it back into the Awards section. It could be written in prose if some people think it's too long. --Pixelface (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC

This works for me. I like the summary box someone added to the Awards section (the one that floats right). I suggest the section be converted to prose and the box be expanded to include all notable wins. As I scroll through the list looking at noms, I wonder how many really readers are interested that it lost 23 awards? lol
Jim Dunning | talk 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

true story?

saw the film tonight for the first time A++! a bit formulaic but still excellent. Wasnt it very loosely based on the death of a real boxer, i recall seeing a review which comented on a real boxer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.196.153 (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Worthless RT review

I removed Rotten Tomatoes reference because has no film critic value to movies.--201.247.28.25 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Last PG-13?

how is this the last PG-13 movie to win best picture when the very next year crash, another PG-13 movie, won the award? i have deleted the sentence that says that it is --Strobes13 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if any other PG-13 movie won Best Picture after Million Dollar Baby, but lemme tell you that Crash was R-rated.--69.248.1.200 (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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: Not moved, WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Million Dollar Baby → Million Dollar Baby (2004 film) To disambiguate from Million Dollar Baby (1941 film). 31.52.4.146 (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the 2004 film is quite clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. SSTflyer 15:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. I added the missing hatnote on Million Dollar Baby (1941 film). — JFG ^talk 22:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:Primary topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 7 August 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Million Dollar Baby. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228102528/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050214/14crockett.peo.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050214/14crockett.peo.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Academy Award

Is it worth mentioning that Swank was the first female in Academy history to be nominated for portraying a boxer? About the 1:45 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWGNsP26ttQ. I don't know how to add it myself. 47.196.133.144 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)