Talk:M*A*S*H (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

* Asterisks

Are asterisks something that won't work in an article title? - Hephaestos 05:23, 13 September 2003 (UTC)

No, I just tried. Dysprosia 05:25, 13 September 2003 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder why asterisks are't listed as illegal charagcters at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)? Kevyn 22:11, 20 August 2004 (UTC)

They seem to work fine in the TV show page of the same name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.227.217 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

M*A*S*H TV Show

It is deplorable that an article for it has not been created yet. Either that or I'm overlooking something. Lockeownzj00 04:29, 24 August 2004 (UTC)

You are. Mike H 04:33, 24 August 2004 (UTC)

The Movie has no Asterisks

A fact pointed out several years ago by the Leonard Maltin Guide, a stickler for accurate titles, and which I've since confirmed. So the movie really should be referred to as MASH - at least by pedants.

• But the movie poster has asterisks, at least according to the tape picture shown in the article. Go figure. Wahkeenah 10:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The title in the movie is sans asterisks and that, not the poster or the title of the television serialization, is surely the ultimate reference in a case such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetragruppasum (talk • contribs) 16:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Move to MASH (movie)

See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066026/. —Cantus…☎ 05:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this rename. IMDB is not infallible, but a strong indicator. The use of the stars on the posters doesn't mean they are part of the title, and Altman is not the sort of idiot who puts non-letter characters in the name of his movies in the hope of getting attention. DJ Clayworth 05:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. Rmky87 12:19, 20 July 2005‎ (UTC)

I have made the related changes in the article. As noted above, I've verified this on a print of the film, and Leonard Maltin's guide lists it as well. Note, however, that the TV show is M*A*S*H, including the on-screen titles.--Cinephobia 00:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I found a copy of the screen play and it has asterisks in the title.http://sfy.ru/sfy.html?script=mash71.109.187.202 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Only in Hollywood

"Based on the book", but no writer given credit... So who was it?! Trekphiler 10:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ring Lardner, Jr., according to the IMDB site. Wahkeenah 10:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Lardner was the credited writer and won the Oscar, although he was offended by the changes Altman made on the set and Altman's encouragement of improvisation among the cast during the shoot. Lardner disowned the movie, and felt that the Oscar was for work he had not done. Having read both Lardner's original and a transcript of the movie, I'm not sure what he was protesting; the two versions are very similar. Canonblack 20:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Plot?

The article really needs a synopsis of the film's plot. Homey 20:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• What's stopping you from writing it? :) Wahkeenah 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I did- hope it's up tp stratch 82.35.32.63 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I last saw this film, but I remember a section where one of the doctors is with a group of people hiding from the enemy and a baby starts crying, so he smothers it, to save everyone, and, traumatized, disassociates that it was only a doll. This isn't in the plot outlined in the article—Am I imagining things? 74.73.152.5 (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@74.73.152.5: You're thinking of an episode of MASH (TV series) - the finale episode, in fact. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Cannes award

I edited this once to change "Grand Prix" to "Palme d'Or" (the name of the award was changed to the latter starting with the 1955 festival). According to the Palme d'Or entry, this was the award M*A*S*H won, not the Grand Prix du Festival International du Film. I don't want to get into a revert war, so whoever changed this back to "Grand Prix", please undo your change. Jeff Worthington 22:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

O'Houlihan

There seems to be a misconception that Margaret's last name is O'Houlihan in the film. Henry twice calls her O'Houlihan and the General also does this twice. I'm not sure whether it's an oversight or a gag, but these are the only occurrences. In every other instance she's referred to as Houlihan. The screenplay refers to her as Houlihan, and in the film when she signs her and Frank's report to the General, she reads her name as Margaret J. Houlihan. I didn't change the article; I'm afraid everyone will freak out. I would like to change this article and the Margaret Houlihan article, if everyone agrees. Donnie Love 02:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Book calls her Houlihan as well. Changed to "Houlihan" here and elsewhere this good-intentioned error has been introduced. Sir Rhosis 01:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again reverted the error of "O'Houlihan," this time with a hidden note for people to please look here before reverting. Once again, from the top: book calls her Houlihan, screenplay calls her Houlihan, and most references in the film (one by the character, herself, see first note in this discussion) are to "Houlihan." Sir Rhosis (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The name in the film is O'Houlihan. There's a sign on her tent that spells it so. Everyone calls her "O'Houlihan". What more proof do we need?

Incorrect. Not everyone in the film calls her "O'Houlihan." She refers to herself as "Houlihan" at least once (see the first post in this section).. When I have time, I will sit down and go through the film, minute by minute to catalog the times she is called both names. What do the credits say? Perhaps there is a case to be made that she was referred to in daialogue (and the sign, as you mentioned) by both names, and the article should reflect that. But I don't have time right now, and will not fool with reverting your edits. Best. Sir Rhosis (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Korea vs. Viet Nam

"Altman deliberately left out overt references to Korea in the film, in the hopes that the audience would conflate the setting with Vietnam. The studio later forced him to add a caption at the beginning mentioning the Korean setting.[citation needed]"

No citation needed. Altman himself states this in the director's commentary on the DVD. 69.155.106.13 (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is still a way to cite that. I think Wikipedia:Citation_templates has how... and it'd be good to mention at what point in the commentary it mentions it so it's easy to verify. gren グレン 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

template for DVD listing; only listings noted as (required) must be used, rest are optional: Usage

Note: Most fields are optional

{{cite DVD-notes
 | title = Full name of film and release version (required)
 | titlelink= Linkable name of film, if different from title
 | titleyear = Year of film release
 | director = Film director (required)
 | format = Source of citation: Booklet, front cover, liner, etc...
 | publisher = DVD publisher
 | location = Location of DVD publisher
 | publisherid = Catalog number of the DVD
 | year = Year of DVD release, do not wikilink it
}}

Release version is not listed. Running time listed is not consistent with the information. (see below, Controversies) To be honest, I wish I had seen this discussion before I edited, but in a way I am glad I didn't, it ignores glaring problems with the text (see below, Controversies) And finally, it seems as though the person dismissing the need for citations somehow managed to edit this anonymously, or even edited both the dismissal and the reply? ie, is Grenavitar, talking to himself?

Controversies

Consecutive sentences, albeit in different paragraphs, from the page:
"Altman deliberately left out overt references to Korea in the film, in the hopes that the audience would conflate the setting with Vietnam. The studio later forced him to add a caption at the beginning mentioning the Korean setting. <reference>

In addition, there is mention of the Korean war during a radio announcement that plays while Hawkeye and Trapper are putting in Col. Merrill's office."

History
The author of the first two sentences, Cop 663, added his own Fact Needed tag after them in his edit on 6 Dec 06 at 17:21.
The reference was subsequently added after the second sentence.
The 3rd sentence was written after the first, as a rebuttal to it.

Deliberately, overt, claims of censorship abetting deception with a political agenda. Pretty strong accusation for a sentence with no citations following it when written, nor at any time since.
There is the possibility, but no proof whatsoever, that the source cited has bearing on the claim of the first sentence, and proof against, as noted below. Confirmation requested.
The 1st sentence has stood uncited since the original edit on 06 Dec '06.
The 1st sentence is an extravagant claim; it can only be proven by extraordinary evidence, not supplied when the article was written, nor in the year following.
The 1st has stood unchallenged for a year, and had as much opportunity to be cited as it had to receive a citation needed tag.
The 3rd sentence contradicts 1st; even if the 1st was not such an extravagant claim, should the 3rd become cited, the 1st would require a rewrite, whether 1st was cited or not.
Extraordinary evidence would be more likely to be common knowledge, yet the claim is uncited after a year.
It can be inferred that the source cited after the 2nd sentence has bearing on the existence of such a caption; there is evidence to suggest that it is, see below. Confirmation would be nice.
Furthermore, The reference mentions a running time on the DVD of 00:03:19. I question whether an interview with the director would have begun, let alone gotten to the matter of studio intervention, within the first four minutes of the DVD; this is more likely the time of the caption. Confirmation is requested.
The titling of the reference as being an interview with the director is therefore suspect, in its capacity as evidence that the DVD is evidence that the studio forced Altman to add a caption; for this and other reasons above, the word 'forced' has been replaced by 'requested'. There is a citation needed symbol conveniently located, should it become necessary to modify the word 'requested' or the It does not necessarily follow that the source cited has bearing on the claim that Altman was forced to add the caption by the studio.

The 3rd sentence was written as a rebuttal to the first. Unfortunately the writer did not add citations; assuming good faith, it can further be assumed that they wrote from personal experience. Citation tag placed on it nevertheless, request confirmation and affirmation that it requires such.

Action: The sentences have been modified to: [links, other page code disabled]
--Controversies--

A caption was added to the beginning of the film that mentions the Korean setting,[ref> </ref] at the request of 20th Century Fox studios.[Citation needed|date=December 2007}} The Korean War is explicitly referenced once[Fact|date=December 2007] during a radio announcement that plays while Hawkeye and Trapper are practicing putting in Col. Merrill's office.[Citation needed|date=December 2007]

Not directly related to the edits: There is a certain irony in Cop 663's having made an edit concerning conflation, the second sentence of which subsequently was conflated with the first, vis a vis citation needed tags.

The whole pair of sentences seems pretty weak in the end, not really in favor of deleting the whole thing though. Discuss if you want.

Production

Due to the above problems associated with the DVD reference, reference number 1, in the Production section, also becomes suspect. Request confirmation.
Am not in favor of putting citation needed tag on first sentence, as its veracity follows from the second's reference, but if it is necessary to get attention for the reference itself...Discussion please. Anarchangel (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

-After editing and seeing the discussion-

Obvious problems with this with Discussion evidence that it is on the DVD; however that evidence is suspect as noted above, and I stand by my position that the claims require extraordinary evidence, and most importantly, must be considered and cited one at a time. Since the source is ostensibly Altman, according to the anonymous person above, a quote from Altman would seem to be appropriate.

Looked all over, couldn't find anything about Altman leaving out references to Korea, only quotes about him adding them. See References in the article for the citations I added. That site tells the whole story. Anarchangel (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MASH1.jpg

Image:MASH1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to 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 fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion vs Fact

"The film has a disjointed, episodic feel; much of the dialogue was improvised during shooting."

This should either be a quote with a citation, or it should be removed for being unencyclopedic (opininon and stuff) 24.193.129.99 (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ONLY in America?

"The two specials are included as bonuses on the Collector's Edition DVD of "Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen". Also included is "M*A*S*H: Television's Serious Sitcom", a 2002 episode of the A&E cable channel's Biography program detailing the history of the show."

This is NOT true of the Collector's Edition sold in Australia. I have the entire M*A*S*H library, all purchased in Australia, and the final CD only contains the movie - NOT the specials. Perhaps the specials were only incorporated in American Editions? This may appear trivial to American people, but let me assure you that it is not to other countries - and this is a global venture, is it not? Please correctly edit this page to ensure that it is correctly stated for ALL viewers.

BasilSmith (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.202.147 (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hawkeye

Benjamin Franklin should be taken out because that name wasn't used until the TV show. SChaos1701 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

A thought

Funny how this movie happens to end with a football game... as a certain football game happened to beat the ending of the subsequent TV series in viewers, as far as records go... and that certain football game happened to take place this year, a fact I never picked up on until now, this "picking up on" happening in the same year (as opposed to years later) or by chance (as opposed to around the actual time of the game when the viewer count had to have been announced). AliceSKD (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Asterisks in lede

I removed the following from the lede and brought it here for discussion:

The film's title is often rendered as M*A*S*H. However, while asterisks were included in the original poster art and in the subsequent TV series, the title that appears onscreen in the film omits them, in the same appearance as it did on the novel's cover.

This simply does not seem to be encyclopedic information, in fact, it looks like original research. Is there a source for the use of asterisks in the various titles? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes: your eyes. Try Googling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Do not move. And no, the film's title card is not a reliable source. We go by usage in books, magazines, journals and newspapers that refer to the movie. Born2cycle 03:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

---

MASH (film) → M•A•S•H – According to many American posters and the title card, that was the official title, wasn't it? What about M.A.S.H? Maybe M•A•S•H (film) or M.A.S.H (film) can fit? --Gh87 (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not very likely. See the post right above this one. Apparently, the film title did not use the asterisks, but the tv show did. Unfortunately, no source was provided for this claim in the article. So, a source is needed one way or the other before a move can be considered. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So the poster or the film's title card is not a source? --Gh87 (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose they are asterisks not middots (atleast on my VHS cover it is). Further WP:UCN and WP:AT says it should be "MASH" (so being "MASH (film)" is the correct disambiguated form). Also, the TV series is better known than the film and uses the same typography, so any undisambiguated title would never be the film. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment M•A•S•H (film) and M.A.S.H (film) should redirect here. M.A.S.H and M•A•S•H should redirect to M*A*S*H . 65.94.77.11 (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Book vs Screenplay

Under "Production", this WikiP entry says "The screenplay, by Ring Lardner, Jr., is radically different from the original novel". I read both the book and the screenplay a while back and Lardner's screenplay is pretty much a verbatim translation of the book - I think even some of the DVD production notes and extras reference this, in that he got the Oscar for best adapted screenplay that year, though the final movie was very different from the book. That statement, or my correction of it, needs to have a citation for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergonaut2001 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Reception - Accolades

The Reception section makes it sound like everyone loved the film. In fact, the film critic reviews were universally negative until Pauline Kael's positive review came out, which caused most critics to do an about-face. No, I won't dig up the references, don't ask. :) Kid Bugs (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reception - Sound Design

Another flaw in this article is that it leaves out the single most important reason for the movie's massive influence on 70's film: it's sound design. Altman's use of improvised (or at least improvised-sounding) dialogue was one thing, but more important was his constant overlapping of the dialogue to try and reproduce the sound of real conversation. This technique was (briefly) a popular part of the various experiments in sound during the 70s, along with location sound, lack of soundtrack music, etc. Altman has stated all this himself (about overlapping the dialogue), so it's not OR. But, I don't feel like looking up the references. So, next time somebody who cares reads this talk page, maybe they'll look into. Im too sleepy. :) Eaglizard (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

RADICALLY different?

While the screenplay is definitely different from the novel by Richard Hooker, I don't think it's accurate that it's *radically* different. Just read Wikipedia's description of the novel's plot...it has most of the same characters, in more or less the same situations, with the same overall flow of plot. A few characters are omitted in the film, and some scenes are condensed or rearranged, but this is typical of all film adaptations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverter says to seek consensus

Rereading the references I was slightly wrong. One of the them mentions "ineffective satire" which should probably also throw doubt to its status as a primary genre. It's what the categories are for (in this case 'satirical films'), to list it even if it doesn't reflect the majority of the references or is disputed by other references. In any case, putting one that disputes something that's already only referenced as "ineffective satire" is hardly deserving of primary genre. Barely made one (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The source you added for black comedy gives no indication of being reliable. It is simply some amateur film critic's opinion. Surely, better sources can be found. The larger point, though, is that the genres do not have to be sourced in the lede, as long as they are sourced later in the article – the critical reception section, most appropriately. To be clear, though, I don't think the lede needs to say both "satire" and "black comedy". ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Critics' opinions are often counted as 'reliable sources' on film pages. If you want an idea of what is generally accepted as that, here, RottenTomatoes approved and Entrertainment Weekly & Variety are no better than Vue Weekly. If the guy is also an 'amateur', he wouldn't be qualified in RT, they screen for professionals. If you yourself agree that satirical isn't needed, then your revert is only delaying the inevitable (and adding a bit of hassle mind you, since my device doesn't have a revert option).

By the way, I'm rather curious as to where you read that genres shouldn't be sourced directly, since I've been doing it a few times. Barely made one (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the opening sentence, WP:FILMLEAD says to put "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified" and also, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." For example, I am not sure if it is appropriate to call it a "black comedy war film", as I doubt many sources actually say that. It may wind up being as simple as calling it a "black comedy film" being set during a war, especially since calling MASH a war film on its own is more "off" than calling it a black comedy film. The Vue Weekly source looks fine, but it would help to do a wider assessment to see what sources tend to repeat. We're not compelled to stuff the opening sentence with all possible genres because of multiple elements; we have the rest of the lead section to unpack that, like pointing out the war or satire elements. As for the sourcing matter, lead sections don't necessarily need sourcing unless the content is subject to dispute. That may be the case here, but no real wider assessment has been done to get all involved parties in agreement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: For what it's worth, a quick search engine test shows war comedy as a common (and reliably sourced) label that puts it in league with similar films. Wikipedia lacks an article on this particular genre, but that does not disqualify this label. (Though a stub article could be created for it.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I know black comedy or dark comedy for this film is listed in many reliable sources. Whether they are in the majority is hard to say but pretty probable. Regardless, does this mean I can remove ‘satirical’ from the lede without objection? A general google search shows the term is used in what seems to be a minority of sources. Barely made one (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Per the guidelines, I support a straightforward presentation, and "black comedy film" seems the most proper answer until an actual assessment is done to show if "black comedy" or "war comedy" is more prevalent. The lead section can discuss the satirical element later on. I don't know if TheOldJacobite agrees. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I do agree, yes. Thank you, Erik. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move buidhe 00:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

---

MASH (film) → M*A*S*H (film) – According to the authoritative AFI Film Catalog, this is the title of the film - it lists "MASH" as an alternate title, and as the working title of the film while in production. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• No, that's just wrong – The asterisks came in with the TV show. The film sometimes used dots (like on the poster), but was most often referred to simply as MASH, and otherwise as M.A.S.H. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, the stylization with asterisks came in with the film. Still, it's not WP style to use such frivolous decorations. See MOS:TM, and Macy's for example. Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• The star is the "Macy's" stylization is a fairly recent thing, it has not been part of the store's name from the beginning, as is the case with the movie since its release. For consistency, both the film and the TV series should be presented in the same way, either both with asterisks or both without. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, that's incorrect. I've provided an authoritative citation which says so. Look at the movie poster in our article, it clearly uses the asterisks, as do all of these posters. Reviews in The Hollywood Reporter, The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Chicago Sun-Times (Roger Ebert), all published at the time of the film's release, refer to it as "M*A*S*H". More recent reviews in Chicago Reader and The Guardian use "M*A*S*H", as does A. O. Scott's obituary of Altman in The New York Times. Can you provide a contemporary citation which uses "MASH"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• The website for the Academy Awards uses "M*A*S*H". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Infoplease uses "M*A*S*H" in reporting the winners of the 1970 Cannes Film Festival, as did The New York Times in 1970. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Richard Corms, reviewer for The National Review used "M*A*S*H", The Atlantic used "M*A*S*H" in 2006. Jerry Roberts in The Complete History of American Film Critiicism uses "M*A*S*H", as does Robert Altman's Soundtracks: Film, Music and Sound from M*A*S*H to A Prairie Home Companion (Oxford University Press) [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• In terms of Google hits, a search on "MASH Altman" gets 495,000 hits, while a search on "M*A*S*H Altman" gets 16,700,000. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• DVD covers use "M*A*S*H". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Allmovie refers to it as "M*A*S*H". [2] Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Other books: The Cinema of Robert Altman [3], Robert Altman: Jumping off the Cliff [4], A Companion to Robert Altman [5], Robert Altman: The Oral Biography [6], Robert Altman: Interviews [7], Altman on Altman [8], Robert Altman: Critical Essays [9], Altman and After: Multile Narratives in Film [10], Robert Altman's America [11], Robert Altman in the American Grain [12], Altman (by Altman's wife) [13], The Films of Robert Altman [14], The Last Great American Picture Show: New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s [15], Robert Altman [16], and Make My Day: Movie Culture in the Age of Reagan [17] all use "M*A*S*H". Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Britannica uses "M*A*S*H" [18], [19], [20], [21]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• This original trailer for the film used "M*A*S*H", twice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• NPR (National Public Radio) uses "M*A*S*H". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• The New York Post uses "M*A*S*H" [22]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• The Telegraph (UK) uses "M*A*S*H". [23] Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Time magazine uses "M*A*S*H. [24]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Playbill uses "M*A*S*H". [25] Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Cinema Journal uses M*A*S*H". [26] Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Boston University uses "M*A*S*H". [27] Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• The Orlando Sentinel uses "M*A*S*H". [28] Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Per WP:COMMONNAME: [T]he term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. I've provided a number of reliable sources which use "M*A*S*H" for the name of the film. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Each case brings its own detailed circumstances into the discussion. The AFI Catalog does indeed list it as M*A*S*H as well as indicating that the film was viewed by AFI. Rotten Tomatoes, AllMovie, TVGuide as well as TCM also list it as M*A*S*H. IMDb, however, lists it as MASH and, most importantly, for me at least, the on-screen credits depict MASH, not M*A*S*H. It is difficult to gain consensus for the insertion of asterisks into Wikipedia main title headers. I submitted Ape (1976 film) → A*P*E at Talk:Ape (1976 film)#Requested move 20 August 2019, while giving M*A*S*H (TV series) as an example, but it did not succeed. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment All three stylisations i.e. M*A*S*H / M.A.S.H. / MASH feature prominently in high quality reliable sources so I am finding it very difficult to ascertain what the WP:COMMONNAME is. That said "M*A*S*H" is the most frequent stylisation in the sources used by the article. Betty Logan (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Incidentally, there's no question that Hooker's original novel (and perhaps the sequels as well, I'm not sure about them) used neither asterisks nor periods, it used ssimply "MASH". This probably accounts for the film's working title (the title used before and while in production) of MASH, per the AFI Catalog. It is also possible (although I haven;t seen anything to confirm this) that the decision to go to "M*A*S*H" was a marketing one, made after the film was complete and ready to release. Tthis could be why MASH appears (for about 3 seconds) as the title in the opening credits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per Beyond My Ken who makes a convincing case. Looked at a few of the reviews and they all used M*A*S*H, and COMMONNAME seems to apply per above cites and links. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and an excellent marshaling of evidence of WP:COMMONNAME. BD2412 T 03:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per summary of evidence above. Not seeing a compelling reason to drop the asterisks. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, the name is spelled with the asterisks. JIP | Talk 14:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stylizations such as this don't belong in the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Then why is the whole franchise at M*A*S*H and the original TV series at M*A*S*H (TV series)? JIP | Talk 10:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Airplane! would like a word with you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Erik: - surely you can't be serious...? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I am serious. And don't call me Shirley. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support The evidence presented above is compelling and convincing. I support the move for the proposed reasons. --Jayron32 14:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.