Talk:Awakenings

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Shouldn't this be divided into two articles, one about Sacks' book and one about the film? One of the things I find bothersome about many Wikipedia articles is that they tend to refer more to pop cultural anchors than to the sources of those anchors. Rhombus 15 November 2024 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.18.218.36 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 June 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Many of the articles about films based on books (& books made into films) have separate articles if the information about both is substantial enough to merit two articles. I prefer the separate article approach, because it treats each work as an individual entity (and keeps article length reasonable, in some cases). However, cross-linking would obviously be de rigueur in such cases. Her Pegship 22:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Vin Diesel from the list of stars. Give me a break, folks; he was an uncredited hospital orderly, not a star, and hardly worthy of mention in this case. Qwe 21:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vin Diesel was in the film? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.68.241 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Really, I just finished watching it and didn't even notice him. 76.64.45.235 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Meara is not credited in your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.221.142 (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to know what if any medical progress has been made with regard to the problems treated in this film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uberkuh (talk • contribs) 08:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Not a whole lot, but I don't think this disorder occurs much anymore... Regular Parkinson's has made some progress, but still less than you'd think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Eleanor tells him that he is a good person and Leonard considered him his best friend. Sayer, remembering Leonard's advice on living every minute of life, asks Eleanor to join him for a cup of coffee."

So who is Eleanor? The plot summary never mentions who she is! tildetildetildetilde —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.114.183.173 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Eleanor Costello is the black-haired nurse that Dr. Sayer works with (played by Julie Kavner). Firetrap (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshed out a lot of the plot info which gives more background on this little tidbit. Evixir (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the book is at least as notable as the movie...so maybe this page should go to the disambiguation page. Thoughts?--Xris0 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I'd recommend the book option. Litawor (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the drug initially work awakening the catatonic patients but then stop working? Is that explained in the film? 81.129.95.5 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Awakenings. 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/20140429161211/http://www.sonymoviechannel.com/movies/awakenings/details to http://www.sonymoviechannel.com/movies/awakenings/details

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheOldJacobite seems to be edit warring over my attempt to make a trivial fix: Changing

Leonard Lowe (Robert De Niro) proves elusive in this regard ...

to

Patient Leonard Lowe (Robert De Niro) proves elusive in this regard ...

The key there being that there is the first time Lowe is mentioned in the main body and it is necessary to provide at least some indication of who this person is. TheOldJacobite keeps reverting this complaining that my edit comments are not clear enough. For the record, the quality of edit comments is not a rationale for reverting edits.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two reverts is not edit-warring. You changed the article and gave an incoherent edit summary. I reverted you and stated that was my reason. You reverted back to your version, falsely claiming that I had given no reason for my revert. I reverted again, repeating what I had said the first time. When you change the article, the onus is upon you to give a good reason for it. You failed to do so. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]