Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)

Rape and revenge

Does Gone with the Wind belong in the categories "Films about rape" and "Films about revenge?" The film does feature rape and revenge, but I don't think that either of those things defines the film.

why do my comments keep getting REVERTED...and even a msg about "disruptive editing"?! they are reasonable comments and i've just BEGUN editing here! moreover, the ID which keeps doing this to me has their talk page LOCKED.

sorry for posting THIS here, but until that user unlocks the talk page, how else do i resolve this?

moreover, the reversions are SO fast, i wonder if some bot is doing it. is said user actually a real human? 66.30.47.138 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a bot committing vandalism. Especially if no reasons are given for reversion. 2.31.164.112 (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

the movie is defined by a lot of things, and reduced to opinions that outweigh source material, including from wiki, itself. falsifying history, for example, is weakly defined, to justify it. so is adjusting for inflation, to claim that it still holds the box office record. you might as well go by international gut feeling and say that starwars from 1977, holds the record. considering academy award history, it is fair to say that african americans only get awards if they depict a role that satisfies racists, if they get an award, at all. this movie proves that. so, depending on your political position, you will state what defines this movie. that includes a man point of view vs a woman point of view, whether rape defines this film. 74.109.247.243 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You should learn how to capitalize 2600:8800:218F:2D00:716F:58EC:5822:6307 (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Listing of Cast

Contrary to what is written in the section entitled, "Cast," the four principal actors in the film are listed in traditional within the first two minutes after the opening credits come on screen. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL2yPFxBQQ4 John Paul Parks (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

This an excellent and thorough article on the subject, particularly impressive in its summary of both what's amazing and what's reprehensible in this film. I've made some minor copyedits as I went for grammar and style; please feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Anything I couldn't immediately fix I noted below. And again, thanks for your hard work on this one! It's paid off well.

• The nota bene re: Brent and Stuart could use a source, since it's contradicting the official credits. Also, you might consider moving this to the same section as the other NBs.
  • Put into note format. Source included in the note.
• Cliff Edwards as voice of unseen reminiscent soldier
  • I can't recall if he's unseen or not, but the AFI credits him as the "reminiscent soldier" so have followed suit.
• Yakima Canutt as renegade -- should these two entries each have a "the"? (Like "the amputation case" or "the Yankee deserter"?) Or is this language taken verbatim from the credits?
  • All credits from "Yankee deserter" onwards just credit the actor, not the part. The roles for these "unnamed" parts are sourced through the AFI catalog (source #1).
• "Cukor knew of Clark Gable's early days in Hollywood working as a gigolo on Hollywood's gay circuit, so Gable used his influence to have him discharged" -- Is Gable's past as a gay gigolo absolutely factually established? This seems like a sentence that might benefit from an "According to Author X" in front of it.
  • As in he came out? Not likely, but it seems to be classic Hollywood's worst kept secret. As you can see from this Google search, lots of writers have covered it. We could attribute it to the writer, but in a sense it already is through the citation. This book claims that Joan Crawford supposedly discussed the affair between Gable and Billy Haines, while Barney Oldfield (pictured here with Gable) apparently confirmed the rumors to the writer. I don't really want to go into all this in the article because it is incidental to the topic, but it most likely played a part in why Cukor was fired so that's why it is included. That said I don't mind pulling it out if you are uncomfortable with it, readers can get a full account of his dismissal on the George Cukor article.
    • No, I think you've convinced me. This was news to me but you're right that it appears backed up by other sources, making a regular citation fine.
• "was the greatest moment of his life, the greatest victory and redemption of all his failings" -- is the "his" here Thomson or Selznick? I assume Selznick is meant, but Thomson is the last male referred to in the text.
  • This claim predates my involvement with the article and the source isn't available to me, but since Thomson was born in 1941 I think it's safe to assume he wasn't at the preview in 1939. I've square bracketed Selznick's name to settle any confusion.
• "As well as becoming the first color film to win Best Picture,[49] it also become the longest." -- slightly ambiguous -- the longest film or the longest color film?
  • It was the first color film, and the longest film to win Best Picture up to that point, or at least that's how I interpret the source anyway. It was the longest American sound film ever made at the time too, so that interpretation must be correct. I've reworded it as "As well as becoming the first color film to win Best Picture,[49] it also become the longest Best Picture winner too." If it's still not clear enough feel free to word it as you see fit.
• "went on to sell an estimated sixty million tickets across the United States—sales equivalent to just under half the population at the time" -- this seems like a small bit of original research. First, the 60 million figure is from the film's initial release, and subsequent two re-releases. More importantly, though, this comparison to the US total population doesn't appear in any secondary source provided here. I'd suggest cutting the "sales equivalent to" part.
  • During this period, the big films had tiered releases: the roadshows, general release and then the discount theaters. The 1941 "release" was actually the film's general release as opposed to a "re-release" (as confirmed by Schatz). Some sources (quite a lot actually) refer to the 1941 release as a re-release, but it was not what we would consider a re-release today, where a film is actively withdrawn and then put back into theaters, such as with Titanic last year. It was really just a phase in its overall release schedule. GWTW played until the end of 1943 when it was finally withdrawn from distribution, so I have clarified the 60 million figure to be from that four year period to avoid the confusion. Obviously if the source presents the figure as the result of three releases we shouldn't misrepresent what it says, but I think the information should be presented in a way that is consistent with what we mean by a re-release today.
  • I added the census/population figure to provide some context for the ticket sales, otherwise we are just throwing a figure at readers. I understand the potential OR problem here, but I believe I have stayed on the right side of the line, or at least the sentence could be worded to make sure it remains on the right side. A typical synthesis problem I had to be careful to avoid was to take the 60 million figure and the 130 million population figure and infer that half the population watched GWTW. The OR problem there is the assumption that there were no repeat sales which is why I used the term "equivalent to". Another possible way of wording this would be to say "sold 60 million tickets when the population stood at 130 million" or words to that effect, because I do think it is important to provide a context for the figure, otherwise it may as well be 6 million or 600 million to a reader not familiar with US demographics.
• "Despite being released twenty-five years later, inflation played a smaller part than it usually does in films breaking older box-office records: the top price of a ticket to see Gone with the Wind was $2.20,[59] whereas for The Birth of a Nation it was $2" -- I can't access the second source, but this seems like another small bit of original research. Are there any secondary sources that explicitly make this comparison and evaluation?
  • Yes, you are right, so I have removed this statement, and replaced it with an actual audience figure.
• " MGM earned a rental of $41 million from the release,[65] almost as much as that year's James Bond film, You Only Live Twice ($44 million)" -- another comparison that could use a secondary source
  • Like with the population figure above, I was trying to create some context. However, re-reading that section I think the context is spelt out enough, and this statement doesn't really add much. Indeed, it depends on the reader being familiar with the James Bond films, so as context it is vague, so I have removed the statement.
• "from Senator George of Georgia" -- is it possible to add the senator's first name? Looks like it's Walter F. George.
  • I've added his full name to the caption, on the assumption it is him.
• "where the audience is left in no doubt that she will "get what's coming to her"" -- which of the three sources is this a quotation from?
  • I have spread out the sources in this section so you can see where each specific claim comes from.

Nominator comments

Thanks for reviewing it. I don't have any complaints about the copy-editing, I always get to a point on these articles where I start to see what I think is there rather than what is, no matter how many times I read through. As for your concerns above, I will work my way through them and address each one directly. Betty Logan (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. I'm happy with all the above and will start the final checklist.

I came here looking for a reference, long after the fact of this being written. I'd just like to put in my two cents about Cukor's firing, and that's all it is (and probably all it's worth), two cents. I've never believed that story about him and Gable. Cukor was going too slowly for Selznick, number one. Secondly, Selznick was so desperate to have Gable - if Gable knew Cukor was the director, why didn't he ask for another director or say he wouldn't do the movie? Why decide while they're filming that Cukor knew about his past? Gable and Cukor certainly knew one another before this; Cukor filled in on the film Manhattan Melodrama.Chandler75 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent; spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Queen's Theatre 1941.jpg needs a tag for its US copyright status. Temporarily removed from article. Won't be restored unless cleared at Commons. It is a good image--hope we can clear permissions.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Duplicate template

There's a duplicate template in the article: "pp-pc", "pp-pc|small=yes". JacktheBrown (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The raid scenes and the Ku Klux Klan

Hello. I would like to comment on the following sentence in the section titled "Analysis and controversies", subsection "Historical portrayal":

"After the attack on Scarlett in the shanty town, a group of men, including Ashley and Scarlett's husband Frank, raid the town; in the novel, they belong to the Ku Klux Klan, representing the common trope of protecting the white woman's virtue, but the filmmakers consciously neutralize the presence of the Klan in the film by simply referring to it as a "political meeting".[110]"

While this text is correctly retelling what the cited source says, the problem here is that the author of the cited source doesn't seem to remember the film. Scarlett's assailant is a white man (there's a black man with him, but he's not the active assailant). In the scene immediately after, they refer to the assailant as part of the "carpetbaggers" (that is, white, if I'm not mistaken). In the scene after the raid when the men are back home with the women, Rhett Butler says that, when he arrived, Ashley and the others had already had "a squirmish with the yankees" (that is, again, a squirmish with white men in the Southerners' jargon, if I'm not mistaken again).

I don't know about the novel, but, as I said, the author of the source we're citing doesn't seem to remember the film. While we're not explicitly mentioning the KKK's anti-black vigilantism in this sentence, the implication to any casual reader is clear and doesn't represent well these particular scenes of the film, I think. By mentioning the KKK, the cited source frames these scenes within a conflict between whites and blacks, but this conflict is not present in these particular scenes of the film.

It's not that "the filmmakers consciously neutralize the presence of the Klan in the film by simply referring to it as a 'political meeting'," as we're saying in the article, because the aggressor is not even black and no one in the film views this as a problem with blacks. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The attack on Scarlett and the subsequent revenge attack by the KKK (along with the motivation) is accurately depicted by the film. It is made explicitly clear by Melanie in the book that the raid is in retaliation for what happened to Scarlett. The raid is intercepted by the Yankees and Frank is shot dead. Margaret Mitchell adds an interesting dimension by making one of the attackers white, and also by having a black man save her—both of which are overlooked by Frank and Ashley. It is made clear in the novel that Rhett was not part of the raid, and this appears to also be the case in the film, so this part has been misrepresented. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The film deliberately departs from the book in this respect, as was Selznick's wish (expressed in his memos, which have been published). This article is about the film, not the book. No reference to the KKK is made in the film. There is no revenge attack from the KKK in the film; that is in the book from what you wrote (I haven't read the book), but not in the film.

The fragment from this Wikipedia article that I copied here doesn't say that the active assailant was a white man, and from the context of what our article says and doesn't say, a casual reader might think that the film shows a black agressor and white "gentlemen" react to that, which is not what the film depicts. And, again, this is about the film, not the book. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

We are not summarizing the film, we are summarizing someone's interpretation of the film, who is discussing the events of the plot in terms of the concessions that the film makes in the context of its racial politics. Clearly the plot of the film and how it deviates from the book (and whether it deviates) is an area of conjecture. Given that the film follows the sequence of events in the book very closely in this regard, just because they omit Melanie's clarification does not mean the raid was not carried out in revenge for what happened to Scarlett. Many people of that era were already familiar with the book, and that would have weighed into their interpretation of many of the scenes that Selznick chose to make less overt. The fact that Selznick decided to not explicitly reference the KKK indicates he was attempting to downplay some of the books more controversial elements, but at the same time he did not provide an alternative explanation from the raid, negating the reason from the book. Ruiz' interpretation of the sequence of events as depicted in the film is perfectly plausible, and is not negated by anything we see in the film. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The movie provides an explanation for the raid. In one or two scenes it's commented how some areas are becoming dangerous. No racial comments are made in these scenes of the film. Then comes the assault on Scarlett (primarily by a white man, accompanied by a black man in a less menacing or active role, if memory doesn't fail me or my perception wasn't somehow wrong).

Scarlett's "saviour" is a black man, who accompanies Scarlett home, where the black man has some dialogue with Scarlett's husband if I remember correctly. Then a group of white men decide to get their guns and go on a raid. Not against blacks, no racial comments are made in these scenes of the film either. The alusion to "a political meeting" is only made by Melania as a made-up alibi to protect their men from the "yankee" guards.

I gather from your comments that the book depicts something else, and I know from history that nastier things happened. But this is a fictional movie and what we see in these scenes is more or less what I have just told. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The film depicts the events as they are in then book. Scarlett is attacked riding through the shanty town by a poor white man accompanied by a black man. She is saved by Polk, a former black slave. Frank and Ashley and some of their Klan buddies raid the town in retaliation but are intercepted by Yankees, and Frank is shot in the head. The events in the film play out virtually the same way. I don't understand what your point is, or what you are objecting to. This is what the article says, in summarizing the Ruiz source:

After the attack on Scarlett in the shanty town, a group of men, including Ashley and Scarlett's husband Frank, raid the town; in the novel, they belong to the Ku Klux Klan, representing the common trope of protecting the white woman's virtue, but the filmmakers consciously neutralize the presence of the Klan in the film by simply referring to it as a "political meeting".

The events in the film are a verbatim depiction of the events in the book, except for one detail, which the author notes is the obfuscation of Frank and Ashley belonging the KKK. That is a perfectly valid interpretation, and it is not our role as editors to question its validity. Betty Logan (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

In the film there's not even a "political meeting", because that's just an alibi they make up for Melanie to tell the yankees (and for keeping Scarlett in the dark, if I remember correctly). My point is that we're telling this in a way that gives the wrong impression to the readers that in these scenes there's a conflict between whites and blacks and that the agresor was black in the film. That's the way the cited source tells it, but we don't need to reproduce the same error just because a source commits this error. The source also commits the error of including Rhett Butler among the participants in the raid, but we don't reproduce this error, we correct it. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"Political meeting" is clearly a euphemism for a Klan raid. What you are attempting to do here is not correct a clear narrative inaccuracy, but rather you a disagreeing with someone else's interpretation. The depiction of the events in the film follow the description of events in the book verbatim, except for one important difference: reference to the Ku Klux Klan is replaced by reference to a "political meeting". What you are saying is that the source is incorrect to interpret this as an oblique reference/euphemism for the KKK. This is outside your prerogative as an editor. Not only is the source entitled to offer this interpretation, it is actually a common interpretation that enjoys wide consensus:

• Trying to erase any sign of the Klan in Gone with the Wind, Selznick uses the phrase “political meeting” instead of the “Klan meeting.” [1]
• The only kind of political meeting he would have gone to would have been a Klan meeting," he explains. "I must have watched Gone With the Wind how many times before I noticed that where the Klan is off-screen?" [2]
• The “political meeting”, as it is alluded to in the film, attended by these well-meaning Southern citizens, was in fact a vigilanti raid on Shanty Town carried out by the Ku Klux Klan, a reference which is omitted in the film but not in the novel. [3]
• I want to focus on two scenes of rape: one that critics have traditionally discussed in relation to race, and a second that has been treated in the context of gender. The first is the attack on Scarlett as she drives through Shantytown on the way to her mill, the catalyst for the clandestine “political meeting,” which in the film remains an unnamed and unmasked version of the Klan that burns down Shantytown to “protect ” southern women. [4]
• Producer David O. Selznick, a liberal Jew, did temper Mitchell’s vision somewhat, banning the N-word but allowing a lot of references to “darkies.’’ There is no direct reference in the film to the Ku Klux Klan, but it’s still pretty clear that the unseen “political meeting’’ that Rhett and Ashley attend after the attack on Scarlett involves the activities of vigilantes in white sheets. [5]

Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The last source again reproduces not only the error that a political meeting occurs in the film (instead of the allusions to it being a made-up alibi), but that Rhett attends that non-existing (in the film) political meeting (Rhett is not even part of the initial made-up alibi, although later that alibi is changed to Rhett and the others being with Belle Waitling). It might even be that Selznick himself ended up not remembering what really is depicted and not depicted in the film. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You are hung up on this particular detail. Rhett's involvement/non-involvement is clearly important to an accurate relaying of the plot summary (which is why I did not object to the correction of this detail) but just because some people have misremembered this aspect does not alter the overall interpretation of the events. The last source does not reproduce the error that a "political meeting" occurs in the film: the source is very clear that the phrase "political meeting" is a euphemism for a Klan raid, and clarifies that the raid is "unseen". Betty Logan (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If, as you wrote, " 'political meeting' is clearly a euphemism for a Klan raid", how could Ashley, Frank, Melanie and the others be so dumb of using it as an alibi so that the yankee guards don't think that the men are participating in a Klan raid? And the audience that went to see the movie would think "what a silly piece of scriptwriting", I guess?

"Hello, yankee guards, my husband and his friends are not participating in a raid; they are in a political meeting [which is a euphemism for a Klan raid]." So, everybody is supposed to understand the euphemism except for the Yankee military of the era. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit is not acceptable, and certainly not backed up by the discussions here. Your edit also fundamentally misrepresents the point the source is making: that is the presence of the Klan is not "omitted" from the film, but rather direct mention of it is obfuscated by an oblique reference to a "political meeting". If you are able to provide a reliable source that offers a different interpretation/meaning for what is denoted by a political meeting then that can be incorporated into the article, but it is not our prerogative as editors to disagree with a reliably sourced interpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

There are thousands of sources, and it is our job not to choose low-quality sources and reproduce the errors that these low-quality sources commit, when these errors are made clear by logical reasoning and statement of the facts.

But I stop here. I thought this would be easier. If I had known how difficult it would be, I would certainly not have started this thread. I have the feeling you didn't read more than a third of what I wrote, because you haven't replied to any of the really meaningful and very simple points I made, only to tangential, convoluted recreations of what you imagined I was writing. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"It is made clear in the novel that Rhett was not part of the raid" Hardly surprising. The novel makes it a point that Rhett maintains working relationships with the Reconstruction-era military authorities, which is why his business interests are thriving despite the political changes since the war. He is pretty much the stereotypical scalawag of the era, though he is motivated primarily by self-interest rather than any political ideology. Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Excessive overlinking

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking advises against over-linking. The general rule of thumb—certainly in film articles—is to link once in the lead and at the first occurrence after the lead. Exceptions are usually made for infoboxes and tables, and can be made for image captions. The guidelines allows terms to be linked up to once (at most) per major section. This is not license to link every single term in every single section. It is obviously beneficial to link the cast again the "cast" section, but it is not necessary to link the cast in every subsequent section thereafter. There is very little utility in linking cast members in the critical reception section, for example, and you just end up with a "sea of blue". The "link once in the lead, once in the body, and once in the relevant section" approach is a long-standing feature of the article, and was in place when the article was assessed for GA status. If editors think there are good reasons for linking every linkable term in every section then they should make their case on the talk page first to see if other editors agree with them. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Excessive number of images added to the article

It appears a dispute that originated at another article has spilled over into this article. It seems that Clarityfiend challenged Ariadne000 about overly long image captions at The Day the Earth Stood Still. The discussion can be viewed at User_talk:Ariadne000#Film_captions. Clarityfiend provided several examples of articles which exhibited good practice, this article being one of those. Ariadne000 subsequently added a dozen photos with overly long captions. I find Ariadne000's general approach to editing problematic, but I will just focus on the editorial problems:

1. I agree with Clarityfiend's view that overly long captions usually reflect poor practice per MOS:CAPSUCCINCT. In my experience, overly long captions are usually symptomatic of problems with the article body, or maybe the image's lack of relevance to the sourced commentary of the article.
2. Ariadne000 argues that "because GWTW is so iconic, photos are warranted". There is no policy or guideline based rationale for such justification. There needs to be an encyclopedic purpose for including an image per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: "Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding". While a couple of the photos have encyclopedic value, in that they would useful to illustrate sourced commentary, the general deployment here is primarily decorative.
3. Just because the images are available and free doesn't mean we have to use them. There has been no regard for the aesthetic of the value, or how it may look on somebody else's screen (see the screencap here: https://postimg.cc/JG1MVWSY). A lot of care was taken in the positioning of images and files throughout the article e.g. the music file was placed in the music section, the reissue poster in the "Later releases" section, the premier photo in the "Premiere" section and so on. By jamming this many photos into the article, the original photos and files are no longer correctly aligned with the relevant section. To maintain this alignment across different resolutions, images were limited to one per section.

Ariadne000 is displaying a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and in their edit summary referred to me as a "bogus" account that "doesn't get an opinion". I have been around well over decade and took this article through its GA review. Every editor is entitled to an opinion, but I am the editor best placed to explain the original design decisions. I would urge them to make their case here for the encyclopedic value of the images they wish to add, and if there is a consensus to add them then we can look at integrating them into the article rather than simply dumping them and destroying the aesthetic of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I endorse the status quo. The other editor is in no position to be humored at all, judging from their inappropriate conduct. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I second an endorsement of the status quo. I find Ariadne is contributing in bad faith and overloading an article with excessive images does more harm than good for our readers, especially on smaller screens. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have also filed a report at WP:ANEW#User:Ariadne000 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: ). — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)