Talk:Travis Bickle

Recent edit war and handling of this article

This is more of an en passant look but...

This article, such as it was, was:

• PRODded on June 15, 2007 [1]
• The PROD was downed and and AfD initiated on the the next day, June 16.
• The AfD closed on June 21. The link to that is above.
• A "mergeto/from" template set was put on the article July 8, less than 3 weeks after the AfD close, by Otto4711.
• No discussion was initiated are even hinted at by Otto4711.
• Otto then merged this article into the main article of the film on August 8. 2 months after the tag but without discussion.
• The redirect was static until May 21, 2009, roughly a year and a half. And the first few edits were to categorize the redirect.
• For the past week, since September 22, there's been an edit war bouncing between the stripped redirect and a revised version of the article.

Now, this raises some troubling points:

• While a bold move isn't necessarily a bad thing. Doing so that soon after and AfD closed as "keep" looks like an end run around the AfD.
• That said, the redirect was stable up until last week. Yes, it is reasonable to categorize character redirects with the core aspects of the character.
• The edit war seems to be between preserving the merge don contrary to the then contemporary consensus and a revised version of the article.

Right now I'd suggest putting a hold on editing this article/redirect for the next week - the block on Otto for edit warring. Even if that means protecting it as is. At that point:

1. The article gets reverted to the state prior to Otto's last revert.
2. The page is immediately put up to a 2nd AfD by someone other than Otto.
3. The page gets locked until the AfD runs its course.
4. Once the AfD runs its course, the resulting redirect or article is left to cool down for at least 6 months.

Thoughts on this? - J Greb (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I support J Greb's proposal. While I believe that there is independent notability for the character, this is something that should be based on community consensus, not the result of an edit war. The AfD should be based on the non-redirect version of the article. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ending is fantasy

I remember watching this on AMC or someplace where they included interviews. The current offering (2/2011) does not include those interviews. BUT: Travis dies. Everything that happens after the shootout is his deathbed fantasy. I think it was Scorsese that points this out. The clues are in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a popular interpretation, though the film strictly speaking leaves it open. Either Travis dies or ends up in a loony bin, but either way, yes the hero's ending very much jars with the rest of the film, it really doesn't feel like it's something that would happen under the rules of the rest of the film. I think it's definitely worth mentioning in the article. Lots and lots of third-party source on that one. 84.65.84.246 (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Duplication and repetition

Most of the content of this article is simply repetition of the plot of the film. What is the purpose of this? Either this should be copy-edited to remove the repetition, and replace that with actual analysis of the character, or merge what is useful into the film article and delete this. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The character should still have a biography section. How will a reader understand what the character is about or what the analysis is about if there is no description of his actions or portrayal. If you don't like the section you should rewrite it.★Trekker (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just removing it is lazy as hell.★Trekker (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to rewrite. According to WP's Notability guidelines,

The coverage from reliable sources should talk about the character in a way which gives its notability from a real world or out-of-universe perspective. This means they are covered as a character in general, and not in the frames of its own series of fiction. For example, an observation of in-game statistics or a simple retelling of their role in the plot means little; the source should give commentary on why these things make it an interesting or notable character.

In other words, it has to be real world coverage, not a recapitulation of the plot. Removing it is policy. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think the subject isn't worthy of an article you should put it up for deletion. What good does turning it into a stub do?★Trekker (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You are intentionally mishearing me. I never claimed it is unworthy of an article. Bickle is one of the most talked-about characters of the last half-century, and there is certainly verifiable information out there about him. What I am saying is that repeating the plot is not what this article is for. A stub, at least, is something that can be built from. In its current state, the article is all but worthless. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not "intentionally" misshearing anything, I'm not an asshole.

Removing it all without adding at least an abridged version robs the readers of a reference frame of any sort. If someone has never seen the film how will they know anythign about the films plot. What help is the film article to the readers of this article, should we instruct them all to read that first?

Without at least a short history section how exactly are the reader supposed get a grip about what the character has done and what about his actions that the reception or analysis section are talking about? The Dracula (character) article recaps the novel shortly becuse that's relevant to understand the character.★Trekker (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You know what. I'm tired and don't have the energy of trying to keep this going. Looking forward to see you turn this into a decent article if that's what you're attempting.★Trekker (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

please, more encyclopedic

The authors of this piece may think it is cool to use terms like "graveyard shift" and "snub nose", but it is not very helpful in an encyclopedia. Please rewrite (looking at the previous edit wars I wouldn't touch the page myself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.13.210.103 (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; it needs rewriting. This is a Wikipedia page about a movie character. It is not a page for gun enthusiasts. If anyone really wants to know what kind of guns were used, the Internet Movie Firearms Database (www.imfdb.org) can provide all they want and more. Flanker235 (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Travis Bickle (character) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2019

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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Travis Bickle (character) → Travis Bickle – As far as I can tell, there is (at the time of this writing) no other article called Travis Bickle and Travis Bickle redirects to this Travis Bickle (character)-article any way. If there is no other article called "Travis Bickle", why disambiguate this article's name as Travis Bickle (character) instead of just calling it Travis Bickle? Heart of Destruction (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• A history merge is what we need here, not a page move. Travis Bickle has substantial history going back to 2004, but at various times has been merged/redirected to Taxi Driver. Travis Bickle (character) is a new article created just a few days ago. PC78 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree. There was an AFD on the article, way back in 2007, with keep as a result. However, the old article was redirected with no discussion taking place. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:31, 15 October 2019 (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.

Mass murderer?

He almost murdered Palatine but how was there mass murders of the traffickers when he was acting in defence of the girl from an immediate threat (child sex trafficking)? One of them was wounded when he shot them so you could say he was a murderer but not a mass murderer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.42.43 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)