text:
Talk:Million Dollar Baby

References to use

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

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 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 . 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, 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  . --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 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 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)

Jim Dunning | talk  23:12, 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!

 * 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 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 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)

Jim Dunning | talk  04:39, 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.

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 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)

Jim Dunning | talk  14:05, 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.

 * 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)

Jim Dunning | talk  14:46, 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.

 * "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)

Jim Dunning | talk  23:17, 25 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.

 * 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 )(ref ) 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 )

 * 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 ) 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 )

 * Film critic Debbie Schlussel gave a spoiler warning before discussing the plot of the film.(ref ) Michael Atkinson of The Village Voice said the film had a "spoiler-spawning shift in narrative."(ref ) 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 )

 * 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 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)

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)

Jim Dunning | talk  22:21, 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.

 * 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 → 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. SST  flyer  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.

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)

title: Talk:Million Dollar Baby


text:
Mudhol Hound

The Mudhol Hound, also known as the Caravan Hound, is a breed of sighthound from India.

The Kennel Club of India (KCI) and Indian National Kennel Club (INKC) recognize the breed under different breed names. The KCI registers it as a Caravan Hound while the INKC uses the name Mudhol Hound.

In 2005 the Mudhol Hound was one of four Indian dog breeds featured on a set of postage stamps released by the Indian Ministry of Communications and Information Technology to celebrate the country's canine heritage. About 750 families in and around Mudhol town of Karnataka are raising this breed for marketing the puppies.

History
The Deccan Plateau covers parts of the states of Karnataka, Maharashtra, and, to a lesser degree, Telangana. The breed is popular in and around Mudhol Taluk of Karnataka and thus the breed got the name Mudhol hound. Shrimant Rajesaheb Malojirao Ghorpade of Mudhol (1884–1937) of the Mudhol State is credited with reviving the Mudhol hound. He noticed local tribal people called Bedar (Fearless); also called Berad (not - crying) using these hounds for hunting. Using selective breeding, he was able to restore the royal Mudhol hound. On a visit to England in the early 1900s, the Maharaja of Mudhol State presented King George V a pair of hounds, which popularized the Mudhol hound breed.

The Indian Army has expressed its desire to use the Mudhol sighthound for surveillance and border protection duties. It has obtained six Mudhol dogs for testing at the Army's Remount Veterinary Corps at Meerut. The dogs were bred after selection, at the Canine Research and Information Centre in Thimmapur near Mudhol in Bagalkot district of Karnataka. The CRIC is a unit of the Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mudhol Hound


text:
James Henry Lane (Confederate general)

James Henry Lane (July 28, 1833 – September 21, 1907) was a university professor and Confederate general in the American Civil War.

As its first Commandant, he is considered to be the father of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets and is the namesake of the University's oldest building, Lane Hall.

Early life
Lane was born in Mathews Court House, Virginia. He graduated from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in 1854 and received a master's degree from the University of Virginia in 1857. He was a professor of mathematics at VMI and then of natural philosophy at the North Carolina Military Institute until the start of the Civil War.

Civil War
Lane joined the Confederate Army and was commissioned as a major in the 1st North Carolina Volunteers on May 11, 1861. He participated in the Battle of Big Bethel and was made lieutenant colonel. Further promotion came quickly and he was a colonel and commander of the 28th North Carolina Infantry Regiment by September 15. In the Seven Days Battles of 1862 he was twice wounded leading his regiment. He served in Major General A.P. Hill's division of Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson's Second Corps for Second Bull Run and took over brigade command following the death of Brigadier General Lawrence O. Branch at the Battle of Antietam. He was promoted to brigadier general on November 1, 1862. It was soldiers with Major John D. Barry of Lane's brigade that accidentally shot General Jackson as he returned from a nighttime scouting trip in front of the Confederate lines during the Battle of Chancellorsville. Lane's command became the 2nd Brigade in W. Dorsey Pender's division of Hill's Third Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia the following May, directly before the beginning of the Gettysburg Campaign.

At the Battle of Gettysburg, Lane's brigade fought on the first day (July 1, 1863) and Lane briefly assumed command of Pender's division following that officer's mortal wounding on the second day. He was replaced in division command by Major General Isaac R. Trimble and returned to lead his brigade during Pickett's Charge, during which he was wounded when his horse was shot from under him. Over the three-day battle, his brigade suffered almost 50% casualties. When Trimble was wounded in the attack, Lane resumed temporary command of the division.

In 1864, Lane continued in brigade command, through the Overland Campaign and Siege of Petersburg. In June, at the Battle of Cold Harbor, he was wounded in the groin. In February and March 1865, he commanded Cadmus M. Wilcox's division. He continued to serve during the Appomattox Campaign, where he was paroled from Appomattox Court House after Robert E. Lee's surrender on April 9.

Postbellum career
Lane returned to academic life, as professor of civil engineering and commerce at Virginia Agricultural and Mechanical College (VAMC)—founded in 1872, name changed to Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) in 1896—and from 1881 until his death, professor of civil engineering and commandant at Alabama Polytechnic Institute, now known as Auburn University.

Lane served as the first commandant of the Corps of Cadets at VAMC. Before resigning, he had an argument with President Charles Minor, who wanted the college to eliminate strict military restrictions.

Lane died in Auburn, Alabama, and is interred there in Pine Hill Cemetery.

Honors
Lane Hall, originally known as Barracks No. 1, on the Virginia Tech campus is named for General Lane. The barracks housed 130 cadets until it was converted into academic offices in 1967. Built in 1888, Lane Hall is listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and National Register of Historic Places.

A klavern based in Auburn, Alabama, that was in existence by 1923 was named after General Lane.

title: James Henry Lane (Confederate general)


text:
Vologases I of Parthia

Vologases I ( Walagash) was the King of Kings of the Parthian Empire from 51 to 78. He was the son and successor of Vonones II (r. 51). He was succeeded by his younger son Pacorus II, who continued his policies.

Name
Vologases is the Greek and Latin form of the Parthian Walagaš (𐭅𐭋𐭂𐭔). The name is also attested in New Persian as Balāsh and Middle Persian as Wardākhsh (also spelled Walākhsh). The etymology of the name is unclear, although Ferdinand Justi proposes that Walagaš, the first form of the name, is a compound of words "strength" (varəda), and "handsome" (gaš or geš in Modern Persian).

Background
Vologases was a son of Vonones II, a Parthian prince who ruled the northern Iranian kingdom of Media Atropatene, and possibly subsequently the whole Parthian Empire for a few months. Vologases' mother was a Greek concubine of the Parthian harem. The name of the Arsacid branch established by Vologases I has been coined by the modern historian Marek Jan Olbrycht as the "Vologasids" or the "House of Vologases I", which ruled the Parthian Empire from 51 till its fall in 224.

Invasion of Armenia
Vologases became the new Parthian king in 51. He sought to continue the policies of the prominent former Parthian king Artabanus II ((r. 12 – 38/41)), and thus, one of his first objectives was to strengthen the Parthian position in strategically and politically unstable regions which had served for decades as the source of war with the Romans. He gave the kingship of Media Atropatene to his elder brother Pacorus, while the even more politically important kingship of Armenia was given to Vologases' younger brother Tiridates after a Parthian invasion of the country in 53.

Vologases felt his invasion was justified due to the recent usurpation of the Armenian throne by the Iberian prince Rhadamistus, which he saw as a violation of the former settlement made between the Parthians and Romans regarding Armenia. Lack of resources and a winter epidemic forced Vologases to withdraw his troops from Armenia, allowing Rhadamistus to come back and punish locals as traitors; they shortly revolted and helped Tiridates restore his authority. Rhadamistus himself returned to Iberia and was soon put to death by his father Pharasmanes I for having plotted against the royal power in order to prove his loyalty to Rome.

War with the Romans
Unhappy with the Parthian reconquest of Armenia, in 54 the newly ascended Roman emperor Nero sent his general, Corbulo to restore Roman authority in the country. Vologases was unable to aid his brother, due to the rebellion of his son Vardanes II and subsequently a revolt in the eastern Parthian province of Hyrcania. Supported by Vologases, Tiridates sent flying columns to raid the Romans far and wide in 58. Corbulo responded by using the same tactics. He also emboldened the Roman client-kings Antiochus IV of Commagene, Pharasmanes I, and the Moschi tribes to attack outlying areas of Armenia.

The loyalty of the Armenian population was split up between the Parthians and Romans, although overall they preferred Parthian rule, due to it being more tolerant, and also due to the similarity between Parthian and Armenian culture. Corbulo conquered the Armenian capital of Artaxata, which he had destroyed. The following year (59) he conquered Tigranocerta in southern Armenia, where he wintered. Tiridates took advantage of this situation to return to northern Armenia from Atropatene. However, by the spring of 60, he was forced to withdraw by the Roman forces once more. Nero appointed a Cappadocian prince named Tigranes on the Armenian throne. The new ruler, protected by a strong Roman force, became bold and started in 61 attacking the border areas of Adiabene, a vassal kingdom of the Parthians. The Adiabenian king, Monobazos, including Tiridates, protested in front of the entire Parthian court, complaining that Vologases did not do enough to protect his subjects.

This situation was important and endangered the relations between Vologases and his subjects. During a public feast, Vologases supported Tiridates' appeals, and placed the royal diadem on his head. He also appointed a certain nobleman named Monaeses as the commander of a Parthian force that included contingents from Adiabene. Monaeses was sent into Armenia, where he besieged Tigranocerta in 62. The city was strongly fortified, and had been further reinforced by two legions. The Parthians attempts to scale the city proved fruitless, with the Adiabenian contingents suffering heavy losses.

At this point, Corbulo sent an envoy to Vologases, who had encamped with his court at Nisibis, near Tigranocerta and the Roman–Parthian border. The failed siege and a shortage of fodder for his cavalry forced Vologases to agree to withdraw Monaeses from Armenia. At the same time, however, the Romans also left Armenia, which, according to the contemporary Roman historian Tacitus, raised suspicions as to Corbulo's motives: some whispered that he had reached an agreement of mutual withdrawal with the Parthians, and that he was unwilling to risk his reputation by renewing hostilities against them. At any rate, a truce was arranged and a Parthian embassy was dispatched to Rome. The negotiations failed to reach an agreement, and war was resumed in the spring of 62.

The Roman government then sent Lucius Caesennius Paetus, governor of Cappadocia, to settle the question by bringing Armenia under direct Roman administration. Paetus was an incapable commander and suffered a humiliating defeat at the Battle of Rhandeia in 62, losing the legions of XII Fulminata commanded by Calvisius Sabinus and IIII Scythica commanded by Lucius Funisulanus Vettonianus. The command of the troops was returned to Corbulo, who, the following year, led a strong army into Melitene and beyond into Armenia, eliminating all of the regional governors he suspected were pro-Parthian. Finally in Rhandeia, Corbulo and Tiridates I met to make a peace agreement. The location of Rhandeia suited both Tiridates I and Corbulo. It appealed to Tiridates I because that is where his army had beaten the Romans and sent them away under a capitulation; on the other hand, it appealed to Corbulo because he was about to wipe out the ill repute earned before in the same location. When Tiridates I arrived at the Roman camp he took off his royal diadem and placed it on the ground near a statue of Nero, agreeing to receive it back only from Nero in Rome. Tiridates I was recognized as the vassal king of Armenia; a Roman garrison would remain in the country permanently, in Sophene while Artaxata would be reconstructed. Corbulo left his son-in-law Lucius Annius Vinicianus to accompany Tiridates I to Rome in order to attest his own fidelity to Nero.

After Tiridates' visit in Rome, Nero summoned Vologases I to Rome several times, but when the invitations became burdensome to Vologases I, he sent back a dispatch to this effect: "It is far easier for you than for me to traverse so great a body of water. Therefore, if you will come to Asia, we can then arrange to meet each other."

Later life and death
However, Vologases I was still satisfied with this result and honored the memory of Nero, though he stood in good relations with Vespasian also, to whom he offered an army of 40,000 horse archers during the Jewish Revolt. Soon afterwards the Alans, a great nomadic tribe beyond the Caucasus, invaded Atropatene and Armenia; Vologases I applied in vain for help to Vespasian, but did not achieve any decisive result. The Alans quickly withdrew with a lot of booty after plundering Armenia and Media Atropatene. Vologases I later died in 78, and was succeeded by his son Pacorus II.

Coinage

Vologases was the first Arsacid ruler to have the Parthian script and language appear on his minted coins alongside the now almost illegible Greek. However, the use of Greek-alphabet legends on Parthian coins remained until the collapse of the empire. On the reverse of his silver tetradrachms, he is being invested as king by a female deity, representing one of the female Iranian deities (yazata) Anahita or Ashi. Both of these deities are closely linked with the khvarenah ("Divine Glory") of the monarch.

Trade
Vologases sought to accomplish the goal of Artabanus II, by attempting to establish a long and structured trade-route that spanned through East Asia, India and the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. This planned long trade-route would greatly improve the economy of the Parthian Empire. In order to accomplish this, Vologases strengthened relations with other powers whom he was able to establish long-distance trade with, most notably Han China. Vologases sought to impose his authority over the trade revenue of Seleucia, and was unrelenting against the Greek elites who questioned his rule. Vologases founded the town of Valashabad in the neighborhood of Ctesiphon and Seleucia, with the intention of breaking the Greek monopoly on trade.

Zoroastrianism
Vologases is an important figure in Zoroastrianism. According to the 10th-century Middle Persian Zoroastrian document Denkard ("Acts of Religion"), Vologases ordered his subjects to safeguard variants of the Avestan books and schooling, which had been scattered due to raids and plundering by the Macedonian king Alexander the Great ((r. 336 – 323)) in the 4th-century BC.

Ancient works

 * Tacitus, Annals

title: Vologases I of Parthia


text:
Amsler grid

The Amsler grid, used since 1945, is a grid of horizontal and vertical lines used to monitor a person's central visual field. The grid was developed by Marc Amsler, a Swiss ophthalmologist. It is a diagnostic tool that aids in the detection of visual disturbances caused by changes in the retina, particularly the macula (e.g. macular degeneration, Epiretinal membrane), as well as the optic nerve and the visual pathway to the brain. Amsler grid usually help detecting defects in central 20 degrees of the visual field.

In the test, the person looks with each eye separately at the small dot in the center of the grid. Patients with macular disease may see wavy lines or some lines may be missing.

Amsler grids are supplied by ophthalmologists, optometrists or from web sites, and may be used to test one's vision at home.

The original Amsler grid was black and white. A color version with a blue and yellow grid is more sensitive and can be used to test for a wide variety of visual pathway abnormalities, including those associated with the retina, the optic nerve, and the pituitary gland.

History
In 1869, Jacob Hermann Knapp described scotoma and metamorphopsia in traumatic maculopathy with choroidal rupture using horizontal lines. Similarly in 1874, Richard Forster demonstrated metamorphopsia using a square grid.

Swiss ophthalmologist Marc Amsler described the Amsler grid in the year 1945. It was the first functional test proposed to evaluate metamorphopsia. He may have gotten the idea of the grid from Edmund Landolt, who used a similar small card with a grid pattern to be kept in the center of the visual field testing instrument perimeter.

Clinical significance
Amsler grid can be used in detecting central visual field defects in following conditions:
 * Age-related macular degeneration: The grid will help detecting the progression of AMD from dry form to wet form. Chance of metamorphopsia is more in wet AMD compared to dry form.
 * Choroidal neovascular membranes: Choroidal neovascular membranes cause scotoma and metamorphopsia. It may be associated with many diseases like macular degeneration, POHS, myopic macular degeneration, trauma etc.
 * Central serous chorioretinopathy: CSCR Causes round or oval scotoma.
 * Macular pucker: Macular pucker also known as an epiretinal membrane cause metamorphopsia and distortions in central field of vision.
 * Cystoid macular edema: Due to macular edema, micropsia may occur.
 * Glaucoma: Amsler grid is useful in detecting central field defects in moderate to severe glaucoma.
 * Macular sparing: Amsler Grid can be used to detect and accurately measure macular sparing.

Types
There are 7 types of Amsler grid charts. All charts measure 10 x, which when viewed at a distance of 33 cm from the eye can be used to measure defects in the central 20 degrees of the visual field.

Chart 1
Chart 1 is the basic version, which is the most familiar and widely used chart among all the charts. In this chart the grid consists of 0.5 cm squares (each for 1° visual field), which totally measures 10 cm X 10 cm size. Most commonly grid is in white color with black background. Grid with black lines in white background is also available (see infobox picture).

Chart 2
Chart 2 is similar to chart 1, but it has diagonal cross lines, which assist correct fixation in case of central scotoma.

Chart 3
Chart 3 is also identical to chart 1, but color is red on black. Stimulating long wavelength foveal cones, this type of chart may help in detecting color scotomas and desaturation which may occur in toxic maculopathies, toxic optic neuropathies and pituitary tumors etc.

Chart 4
Chart 4 has no lines, only a random pattern of white dots in black background. It was intended to differentiate areas of scotoma and metamorphopsia.

Chart 5
Chart 5 has central white dot and horizontal white lines on black background 5mm apart, which allow detecting metamorphopsia.

Chart 6
Chart 6 is similar to chart 5, but lines and central dot is in black on white background. The lines near to fixation points are closer than the chart 5.

Chart 7
Chart 7 is similar to chart 1, however central squares are further divided into 0.5 degree squares.

Procedure

 * Before starting the test, patient's near and distance vision should be corrected to normal. If the patient is wearing spectacles, testing should be done with glasses only especially if you have near glasses.
 * In a well illuminated room, ask the patient to hold the grid 12 to 15 inches away from the face.
 * Ask to cover one eye with hand or occluder and look directly at the center black dot.
 * While looking directly at the center dot, and observe the grid whether patient can see all corners and sides of grid. If any lines or areas look blurry, wavy, dark or blank mark that area in chart and consult ophthalmologist.
 * Follow the same steps with the other eye.
 * Always remember to keep the Amsler's Chart at the same distance from the eyes each time you test.
 * This test can be self done at home also.

title: Amsler grid


text:
User:Batgirl

My Chess Sites:

 * Chess Journal
 * Paul Morphy
 * Blog archive
 * Chess History Articles

title: User:Batgirl


text:
Messel pit

The Messel pit (Grube Messel) is a disused quarry near the village of Messel (Landkreis Darmstadt-Dieburg, Hesse) about 35 km southeast of Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Bituminous shale was mined there. Because of its abundance of well-preserved fossils of the Messel Formation dating from the middle of the Eocene, it has significant geological and scientific importance. Over 1000 species of plants and animals have been found at the site. After almost becoming a landfill, strong local resistance eventually stopped these plans and the Messel pit was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site on 9 December 1995. Significant scientific discoveries about the early evolution of mammals and birds are still being made at the Messel pit, and the site has increasingly become a tourist site as well.

History
Brown coal and later oil shale was actively mined from 1859. The pit first became known for its wealth of fossils around 1900, but serious scientific excavation only started around the 1970s, when falling oil prices made mining the quarry uneconomical. Commercial oil shale mining ceased in 1971 and a cement factory built in the quarry failed the following year. The land was slotted for use as a landfill, but the plans came to nought and the Hessian state bought the site in 1991 to secure scientific access. In the few years between the end of mining and 1974, when the state began preparing the site for garbage disposal, amateur collectors were allowed to collect fossils. The amateurs developed the "transfer technique" that enabled them to preserve the fine details of small fossils, the method still employed in preserving the fossils today.

Many of the known specimens from the site have come from amateur collectors and in 1996, an amnesty on previously collected fossils was put in effect, in the hope of getting privately owned collections back into public ownership and available to science.

Depositional characteristics
The current surface of the Messel pit is roughly 60 m below the local land and is about 0.7 km2 in area. The oil-shale bed originally extended to a depth of 190 m. 47 million years ago in the Eocene when the Messel deposits formed, the area was 10° further south than it is now. The period was very close to the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum and the climate and ecology of the site were very different, characterised by a mean annual temperature of 22°C and a large series of maar lakes surrounded by lush sub-tropical forests that supported an incredible diversity of life. The Messel lake bed was probably a center point for drainage from nearby rivers and creeks. The pit deposits were formed during the Eocene Epoch of the Paleogene Period about 47 million years ago, based on dating of basalt fragments underlying fossilbearing strata. Oil shale, formed by the slow anoxic deposition of mud and dead vegetation on the lake bed, is the primary rock at the site. Its sediments extend 13 m downward and lie atop an older sandstone foundation. The fossils within the shale show a remarkable clarity and preservation due to the unique depositional characteristics of the lake and so the Messel pit represents a Konservat-Lagerstätte. The upper stratifications of the lake most certainly supported a variety of organisms, but the bottom was subject to little disturbance by current, spawning a very anoxic environment. This prevented many epifaunal and infaunal species from inhabiting this niche and thus bioturbation was kept at a minimum. Overturn of the lake layers (caused by seasonal variations) lowered oxygen content near the surface and led to a periodic "die-off" of aquatic species. Combined with a relatively low rate of deposition, 0.1 mm per year, this provided a prime environment for the preservation of fauna and flora.

Volcanic gas releases
The area around the Messel Pit is believed to have been geologically and tectonically active during the Eocene. Leading scientists hypothesize that events much like the 1986 volcanic gas releases at Lake Nyos, Cameroon, could account for the large deposition of non-aquatic species (Franzen & Koster, 1994). Periodic subsurface shifts possibly released large concentrations of reactive gases (such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide) into the lake and adjoining ecosystems, killing susceptible organisms. During these releases, birds and bats might have fallen in if near the lake surface and terrestrials could be overwhelmed when near the lake shore. Since the lake was very deep, animals that fell in it drifted downwards into oxygen- and bacteria-poor water, where they were preserved remarkably well, being overlaid by successive layers of mud that petrified later, thus producing an aggregation of fossils of exceptional quality, quantity, integrity, and variety. However, other hypotheses have been postulated as well, and have suggested a Cyanobacteria bloom origin resulting in the poisoning of the animals. This last one was considered to be necessary in order to explain the occurrence of excellent fossils throughout the entire sedimentary sequence (Koenigswald & others, 2004).

Fossils
The Messel Pit provides the best preserved evidence of Geiseltalian flora and fauna so far discovered, with over 1000 species identified. Most other sites are lucky to contain partial skeletons, but Messel boasts extensive preservation of structural integrity, even going so far as to preserve the fur, feathers and "skin shadows" of some species. Unusual preservation has sparked some closely reasoned interpretations. The symptomatic "dumb-bell"-shaped bite marks on either side of the leaf vein on a fossilised leaf have been identified as the death-grip of a carpenter ant terminally parasitized by the fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, that, apparently then as today, commandeered its behavior, in order to release its spores from a favourable location; it is the earliest concrete sample of fungal behavioural manipulation.

The diversity of species is remarkable partly as a result of the hypothesized periodic gas releases. A brief summary of some of the fossils found at the site follows:

 * Nine mating pairs of fossil turtles have been found. The turtles, Allaeochelys crassesculpta, were in coitus (in the act of having sex). They are male-female pairs, with the male's tail tucked under the female, which is how they copulate. Their death must have been rapid. It is supposed that the turtles had started mating in the aerated surface waters of the ancient lake. As they sank into deeper water, they were overcome by the release of toxic volcanic gas. They were then buried in the lakebed sediment. Turtles belonging to this clade are still living. They have lost their reptilian scales, and their skin absorbs oxygen from the water. Normally, this is an advantage: it helps them stay submerged for long periods. However, under anoxic conditions it is a disadvantage, because carbon dioxide and dissolved poisons are absorbed as well.
 * Over 10,000 fossilized fish of numerous species
 * Thousands of aquatic and terrestrial insects, some with distinct coloration still preserved
 * Innumerable small mammals including pygmy horses, large mice, primates, ground dwellers (hedgehogs, marsupials, pangolins), aardvark relatives and bats. The fossilized bat specimens have provided insights into the evolution of echolocation.
 * Large numbers of birds, particularly predatory species.
 * Crocodiles, frogs, turtles, salamanders and other reptiles or amphibians
 * Remains of over 30 distinct plant species, including palm leaves, fruits, pollen, wood, walnuts and grapevines

The following is only a partial list:

Mammals

 * Darwinius masillae, identified in 2009 as an adapiform primate
 * Kopidodon, an extinct arboreal cimolestan
 * Leptictidium, an extinct omnivorous hopping mammal (of the leptictid family)
 * Propalaeotherium, an early relative of horses
 * Ailuravus, a rodent
 * Peradectes, a metatherian
 * Palaeochiropteryx, a bat
 * Lesmesodon, a small hyaenodontid
 * Eomanis, an early pangolin
 * Eurotamandua, a scaleless, anteater-like pangolin
 * Europolemur, a primate
 * Hyrachyus, ancestor of rhinoceroses
 * Paroodectes, an early carnivorous mammal
 * Messelogale, an early carnivorous mammal
 * Pholidocercus, an early hedgehog
 * Macrocranion, an early long-tailed hedgehog
 * Masillamys, an early rodent
 * Messelobunodon, an early artiodactyl
 * Godinotia, an early primate
 * Buxolestes, a semiaquatic, otter-like cimolestan

Birds

 * Palaeotis, an early struthionid
 * Strigogyps sapea (formerly Aenigmavis) a cariamiform
 * Eocoracias, an early coraciiform with known coloration
 * Messelornis, the Messel-bird; a species of gruiform
 * Masillastega, a freshwater sulid
 * Lapillavis, a possible trogonid relative
 * Cypseloramphus, a basal apodiform
 * The Messelasturidae (Messelastur and Tynskya), carnivorous relatives of modern parrots
 * Palaeoglaux, an early owl with enigmatic breast feathers
 * Paraprefica, an early potoo
 * Paraortygoides, a galliform
 * Masillaraptor, an early falconiform
 * Parargornis, an early apodiform
 * Messelirrisor, a tiny bucerotiform closely related to hoopoes and wood-hoopoes
 * Selmes (an anagram of "Messel"), a mousebird with stubby toes
 * Gastornis (formerly Diatryma), a large, flightless anseriform
 * Hassiavis, a member of Cypselomorphae
 * Quasisyndactylus, a member of Alcediniformes
 * Vanolimicola, a possible charadriiform
 * A currently unnamed lithornithid, a sandpiper-like paleognath, the first record of its kind in Middle Eocene Europe.

Reptiles

 * Asiatosuchus, a large crocodile
 * Diplocynodon, an alligator
 * Hassiacosuchus, a durophagous alligator
 * Bergisuchus, a sebecosuchian crocodiliform
 * Eoconstrictor, 2-m snakes related to Neotropical boas, Boinae
 * Messelophis, a tiny, live-bearing or viviparous boa
 * Messelopython, the oldest known relative of pythons
 * Cryptolacerta, a lizard with affinities to amphisbaenians
 * Geiseltaliellus, a lizard with affinities to Corytophaninae
 * Allaeochelys crassesculpta, aquatic turtles related to Carettochelys

Fish

 * A bowfin, variously described as Amia (the modern genus) or Cyclurus
 * Amphiperca, an early perch
 * Palaeoperca, another early perch
 * Atractosteus, a gar
 * eel

Insects
Family Formicidae (ants) Family Apidae Family Megachilidae
 * Hemiptera
 * Wedelphus dichopteroides Szwedo & Wappler, 2006
 * Hymenoptera
 * Casaleia eocenica Dlussky & Wedmann, 2012
 * Cephalopone – Cephalopone grandis and Cephalopone potens
 * Cyrtopone – Cyrtopone curiosa, Cyrtopone elongata, Cyrtopone microcephala, and Cyrtopone striata
 * Gesomyrmex pulcher Dlussky, Wappler, & Wedmann, 2009
 * Messelepone leptogenoides Dlussky & Wedmann, 2012
 * Pachycondyla eocenica Dlussky & Wedmann, 2012
 * Pachycondyla lutzi Dlussky & Wedmann, 2012
 * Pachycondyla? messeliana Dlussky & Wedmann, 2012
 * Pachycondyla parvula (Dlussky, Rasnitsyn, & Perfilieva, 2015)
 * Pachycondyla petiolosa Dlussky & Wedmann, 2012
 * Pachycondyla petrosa Dlussky & Wedmann, 2012
 * Protopone – Protopone? dubia, Protopone germanica, Protopone magna, Protopone oculata, Protopone sepulta, and Protopone vetula
 * Pseudectatomma – Pseudectatomma eocenica and Pseudectatomma striatula
 * Titanomyrma gigantea
 * Titanomyrma simillima
 * Protobombus messelensis Engel & Wappler, 2003
 * Friccomelissa schopowi Wedmann, Wappler, & Engel, 2009

IUGS geological heritage site
Describing the Messel Pit Fossil Site as 'richest geosite in the world for understanding the living environment of the Eocene, as it includes exceptionally well-preserved fossils', the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) included the site's Eocene record in its list of 100 'geological heritage sites', published in October 2022. The organisation defines an IUGS Geological Heritage Site as 'a key place with geological elements and/or processes of international scientific relevance, used as a reference, and/or with a substantial contribution to the development of geological sciences through history.'

Access
Exhibits from the pit may be seen in the Messel town, the fossil Museum in Messel, the Hessisches Landesmuseum in Darmstadt (5 km from Messel) and also the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt am Main (some 30 km from Messel). Casual visitors can park close to the pit and walk around 300 m to a viewing platform overlooking the pit. Entrance to the pit is only possible as part of a specially organized tour.

title: Messel pit


text:
Wrestling at the 1980 Summer Olympics

Wrestling at the 1980 Summer Olympics was represented by twenty events (all — men's individual). They were split into two disciplines (ten events each): Freestyle and Greco-Roman. All events were held in the Wrestling hall of the Sports Complex of the Central Sports Club of the Army (north-western part of Moscow) between 20 and 31 July.

Greco-Roman

Participating nations
A total of 266 wrestlers from 35 nations competed at the Moscow Games:

title: Wrestling at the 1980 Summer Olympics