Talk:In the Name of the Father (film)

Change

"However, the film is not a true story as widely believed, merely based in part on actual events." The film is autobiographical; not all events depicted really happened, but the underlying story (pub bombings, Guildford 4 trial, imprisonment, release after appeal) is all true. Removed. --duncan 11:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:In the name of the father ver2.jpg

Image:In the name of the father ver2.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 this Wikipedia article 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 ensure 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 fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubliners

• To me the London setting reminds me of some corners in Dublin. Which scences are filmed in London?

For example the whore#s robbery is in ------ street and the hippies house either. Do you think it#s a good idea to change places for tension on this page? Foreshadowing means something else!--Danaide (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Gareth

Gareth Peirce is a solicitor as is apparent from the wiki entry for that person.

It is also reasonably apparent from the film that she is a solicitor and indeed from the plot summary in this article: she does factual research of a kind not ordinarily carried out by barristers.

She also does some advocacy in the Court of Appeal in the film; I don't know whether she in fact did in real life. The wiki article on Ms Peirce states that it is a composite character.

From memory Emma Thompson has a wig in her car (thus indicating that she is indeed a barrister) - but doesn't wear it in Court! I like to think that there was then a big argument between (1) props, (2) wardrobe, (3) continuity, (4) Emma's agent (who presumably thought that the wig was either unattractive and/or annonymised the wearer, their client) and/or (5) legal advisers to the film at the preview, but I can find no third party source to confirm this.

86.166.129.141 (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2024

In the Name of the Father (film) → In the Name of the Father (1993 film) – per WP:PRIMARYFILM, explicitly states that if a film isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name, then it shouldn't be under a partial disambiguation like it is now (there's another film under this name). Alternatively, if this film is determined to be the ptopic for said phrase, a move to just "In the Name of the Father" is also reasonable. Zinderboff (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Assuming the 2006 film is actually notable (it's article cites only IMDb), rename per nom. Also would be fine with moving to the primary topic, as the only other serious contender is Trinitarian formula which seems unlikely to be referred to by only its first bit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Theparties (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support, move to In the Name of the Father (1993 film). 162 etc. (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support due to the parenthetically-disambiguated In the Name of the Father (film) still being ambiguous due to two secondary topics of the same name and of the same medium. No issue with undoing it if the 2006 film's notability is challenged, but it may be worth requesting for someone with Persian-language knowledge and research experience to look into that. The director appears to be mentioned in numerous books about Iranian cinema, with a few of them mentioning In the Name of the Father, so there is potential notability to reflect in the Wikipedia article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Move to In the Name of the Father per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. With well over a thousand hits per day, 97% of all pageviews among anything that could possibly be titled "In the Name of the Father", this is by far the primary topic. (If not moved to the plain title, oppose adding year per WP:INCDAB.) - Station1 (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Move to In the Name of the Father. Very clear primary topic by both pageviews and long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)