Talk:The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
I mentioned inconsistencies between DVD liner notes and the film; narrative section needs to be filled
I feel it's vital to mention that the liner notes on the DVD package do not jibe very well with the actual events on the film. This is important—particularly for a film that's so uncannily faithful to the book. Also, there needs to be a narrative for the film. I have left it "blank" for now, and in time will complete it after viewing the film again—unless, of course, someone else does first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.172.86 (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's not Wikipedia's role to inform others of errors or inaccuracies in the DVD liner notes as explained in WP:UNDUE in nature. Any claims or interpretations of the liner notes or the film need to be properly sourced and properly attributed, so that they can be verified and are not written in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. attributed to Wikipedia). -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)]
The narrative is a little long; feel free to condense it
Don't, however, leave out anything vital to the overall narrative, or that sets this film's narrative apart from that of other adaptations—particularly parts that demonstrate this narrative's uncanny faithfulness to the book version. Some of the "little things", like Buck's lessons on how to survive in the Northland, the nature of the characters, and the most important of Buck's adventures outside of the presence of humans should be kept—although many of the plot twists could arguably be said in fewer words. As the film's narrative adheres more to Jack London's book—perhaps much more—than others, it's intrinsically complex—so be careful cutting it down to size.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 10:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Plot summaries for movies are supposed to be in accordance with MOS:FILM. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to add the word “not“ (underlined) for clarification as explained below. — 14:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)]]
- I have added a reference to my "reliable source", namely the DVD itself. This article is my first major edit in a while, and I forgot (Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!) that information isn't considered "sourced" unless a reference is included. I forgot the importance of including meta-text in my hurry to use my source. BTW, This movie, since it adheres largely to the book, which has a complex narrative, may be difficult to summarize compactly. Some films have complex narratives that can only be properly summarized "in longhand". But if you can condense significantly it without removing the (most important) aspects of the narrative that make it unique, go ahead. It's better to start with too much and then shorten it down, rather than risk leaving out anything important. I personally don't time time to figure out what parts of my narrative matter most, so other should feel free to do so. (But they should watch the film first; also, in case I made any mistakes.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 13:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: just to check – you say
Plot summaries should contain...
but that must be a typo, and you intended to say "...should not contain...", right? --bonadea contributions talk 14:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: just to check – you say
The issues about inconsistencies between the film and the liner notes are worthy of including
I can only swear by my own personal copy. Perhaps there are other copies with the errors corrected. But if not, they should be mentioned in order to caution potential buyers and views not to take the liner notes at face value.RobertGustafson (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- See my comment above in ]
- The Wikipedia instructions themselves call the bit 3 rules guidelines, not absolutes. That means, according to my lifelong understand of grammar, that minor exceptions can be made in exceptional cases. Besides, leaving out truthful information, even if it's not widely known, can mislead readers. (PS. On a related issue, just because something is widely attested by several sources doesn't make it "true". Remember, a fundamental rule of logic is to never believe something purely on authority. One has to be able to employ common sense, and it's not "OR" to simply state blatantly deducible facts. There's a fine line between speculation (bad) and inference (sometimes good). I agree that unsourceable stuff should be subject to challenge, but truth does matter!) (PPS. Read my lower post on the talk page—namely, that it's better to manually edit questionable edit rather than do blanket reverts, in order to avoid collateral damage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 12:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- First, please try to remember to WP:PRESERVEd, then I would've done so; but there's nothing about unsourced personal interpretations or claims that can be saved, unless you're arguing that you yourself should be considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes with respect to this. Is that what you're trying to say? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)]
- First, please try to remember to
- The Wikipedia instructions themselves call the bit 3 rules guidelines, not absolutes. That means, according to my lifelong understand of grammar, that minor exceptions can be made in exceptional cases. Besides, leaving out truthful information, even if it's not widely known, can mislead readers. (PS. On a related issue, just because something is widely attested by several sources doesn't make it "true". Remember, a fundamental rule of logic is to never believe something purely on authority. One has to be able to employ common sense, and it's not "OR" to simply state blatantly deducible facts. There's a fine line between speculation (bad) and inference (sometimes good). I agree that unsourceable stuff should be subject to challenge, but truth does matter!) (PPS. Read my lower post on the talk page—namely, that it's better to manually edit questionable edit rather than do blanket reverts, in order to avoid collateral damage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 12:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I see that the powers-that-be are cutting me a little slack.
Once again, don't toss out good edits with bad; it's better to edit a questionable edit, rather than do a blanket revert. If you think that my concerns over inaccurate liner notes are irrelavent or not important (I respectfully disagree), delete just that—not the entire edit. I think it's much clearer that the disclaimer part should be retained; if it belongs in another section, move it, don't delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 12:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please see WP:UNDUE and could be properly attributed and supported by citations; otherwise, you're basically adding your own "research" or "interpretation" about this matter to the article which is not suitable at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)]
- Facts are not "interpretations". However, I realize that something that is undocumented by other is difficult to credibly support. I've decided to concede, having made my case, on the liner-note front. But I still believe that the video disclaimer about the treatment of the animal actors--which one can easily see simply by viewing the DVD itself--is pertinent. I've moved it to its own section. THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE. Entire edits should not be erased just because parts of it are unsuitable. Just the particular parts that are bad. Edit what you don't think is right, rather than revert.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 12:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you're suggesting that I have to "publish" in a non-Wiki forum a formal liner-note complain--say, in a letter to a magazine editor, the chances of 1 "average Joe" getting something so minor (in their view) a point published years after the DVD's release are slim. Harder still if I have to get other people to publish similar complaints. I maintain, I'm not making this up; this isn't speculation or "original research". I'm relying on a commercially-purchased copy of the film. I viewd the film, and I read the notes. Would you be satisfied if I added a "liner-note" reference? Tell me how to add a DVD-liner-note reference and I'll do it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 12:48, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Robert. Reviewing this content, I concur with Marchjuly that we need secondary sources. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based primarily on secondary sources. Primary sources can be referenced with care for basic descriptions, like characters' names. In this case, to discuss the liner notes as "inaccurate" is not a basic description but an outside perspective of that content. Think of a historical or biographical film; we would want to reference historians and biographers judging the film on its accuracy. We would not play armchair historians or biographers and point out issues ourselves. Furthermore, secondary sources help establish the relevance of information added to Wikipedia. For example, I work on lists of films featuring common content, and I seek such sources to include films. If some content in a film is noteworthy, then it will be highlighted in a source. If sources cannot be found for such content, then is it noteworthy? Wikipedia is summarizing what the "outside" world says about a topic. So I am not seeing a reason to include the disclaimer and the DVD-related content based on the sources currently used. It's possible that there are secondary sources about either section, and we should seek them out. But if we come up empty-handed, we shouldn't keep the content. Maybe we will come up with other kinds of content about this film that we could then include. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- (WP:OR unless we are considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source about the subject we are trying to write about. Any interpretation you try to make about the liner notes is going to be considered "original research" unless you are claiming that you're considered to be a reliable source on the matter. It makes no difference whether your interpretation is right/true if there's no way to verify it through citations to secondary sources. You can cite the liner notes of a DVD or album, but you cannot interpret them or say they are right/wrong, unless you are defining yourself as a reliable source on such matters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)]
- Read my latest talk-page posts. I have added the explicit references to the liner notes and the DVD. After a long time away from Wiki edits, I forgot that something isn't considered to be "sourced" without a <ref> tag listing the source. Silly me. I hope I've satisfied you. BTW, my assertion that the notes are "unreliable" is apparent just by viewing the film and reading the corresponding liner notes--which are both now properly sourced. There's a difference between speculation--which is bad--and a blatantly obvious inference--which can be acceptable. (If one thing says X and another says Y, then it's not OR to say that they're different--which means one is wrong. It's simply a tautology. Is there no room for employing common sense here?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert: We can summarize what reliable sources are saying about the film, but we cannot interpret these reliable sources. If reliable sources have discussed the liner notes and the errors you found, then perhaps we can add content about such a thing to the article. We cannot, however, watch the film, read the liner notes and then come to our own conclusion that they are wrong (no matter how right we might be) because that is going to be considered original research and is not going to be acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. So, if we want to add content that states the DVD has liner notes, that the third word of the first sentence is "the" or that the makers of the film dedicated it to their parents in the liner notes, then the liner notes themselves could possible be considered a WP:UNDUE. Are you aware of any reviews, etc. of the DVD written by reliable sources which discuss the errors you found in the liner notes? if you, then post the links here so we can discuss them and figure out a way to incorporate such content into the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)]
- Since I've now referenced sources, can I simply compare and contrast what the liner notes say and what the film says, and let reader reach their own conclusions that they don't match? Will that do??RobertGustafson (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert: Please discuss first and see if there's a consensus to add such content to the article before adding it. The burden is upon you to convince others that it should be there before adding it. You were bold and were reverted; so, now you should try and follow edit warring which is not likely going to help get the content into the article. Post what you want to add below and give others a chance to comment on it. Don't add it to the article and then ask. Any comparison between the film and the liner notes is an interpretations and critical commentary on them and is something we should avoid unless we have secondary sources to cite in support. We don't need to list the liner notes just so that the reader can read them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)]
- @Robert: Please discuss first and see if there's a consensus to add such content to the article before adding it. The burden is upon you to convince others that it should be there before adding it. You were bold and were reverted; so, now you should try and follow
- Since I've now referenced sources, can I simply compare and contrast what the liner notes say and what the film says, and let reader reach their own conclusions that they don't match? Will that do??RobertGustafson (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert: We can summarize what reliable sources are saying about the film, but we cannot interpret these reliable sources. If reliable sources have discussed the liner notes and the errors you found, then perhaps we can add content about such a thing to the article. We cannot, however, watch the film, read the liner notes and then come to our own conclusion that they are wrong (no matter how right we might be) because that is going to be considered original research and is not going to be acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. So, if we want to add content that states the DVD has liner notes, that the third word of the first sentence is "the" or that the makers of the film dedicated it to their parents in the liner notes, then the liner notes themselves could possible be considered a
I reintroduced the disclaimer in its own section and left out the liner not stuff
I agree that the latter (liner notes) is questionable, but the first (disclaimer) is pertinent. Satisfied?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 12:24, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
- I removed the disclaimer – it is not encyclopedic information. Any film involving animal or child actors is going to have a disclaimer similar to that, and there is no claim or source showing why it would be relevant info here. --bonadea contributions talk 14:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I have added explicit references to the DVD and its liner notes. Is that sufficient?
Someone with my experience should have realized the importance of documenting a source in order to prove that it is sourced. But then, even smart veterans occasionally make dumb rookie mistakes. It's only natural that someone might think that something is OR if the source isn't explicitly mentioned. But my remarks were taken from a "reliable source" all along. But given how many bad actors and inexperienced newbies there are, I guess I should have expected such an oversight would make the powers-that-be assume the worst. But then, it's been a while since I last did a major edit.RobertGustafson (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I use the US convention of using double quotes to mark phrases as "so-called"
It's common convention in the US to use double quote marks to mark off both verbatim quotations and the use of phrases in an ironic, "so-called" sense (as I'm using it here). I'm sticking with the convention. I hope it's not confusing. I believe Brits do the same using single quotes for both. I know that some people use single quotes for so-called and double for verbatim, but since that practice is generally considered non-standard in the English language, I don't.
It's common knowledge that most US/Canandian DVD players need Region 1/NTSC but personal computers don't
There's no need to source common knowledge. That's "public domain". It's a well-established fact that Region 0/PAL DVD's don't play on most US/Canadian DVD players, but do play on PC DVD-players. If I say that the Declaration of Independence was enacted on July 4, 1776, there's no need for a source--it's widely accepted fact. I learned that when I learned to do term papers! Are the rules here different?!
- @Robert: Please MOS:MOS as much as possible to try and ensure some degree of consistency for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)]
- I removed the text about where the DVD can be viewed, since that's got nothing to do with the film. There are articles about the DVD formats and regions, and Wikilinks to those articles, which I believe is more than sufficient. (Also – if the US and Canada are specifically mentioned as not being PAL compatible, why not mention Japan, France, Chile, the Philippines, Mexico, Benin, etc, etc?) --bonadea contributions talk 14:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I now compare and contrast my (now) referenced sources
I no longer "argue" that there's an inconsistency between the DVD and liner notes. I detail key liner note text and contrast it with the film narrative. Since both sources are reference, and I leave to the readers to infer a discrepancy, there's clearly no OR going on!
- You don't really need to start a new discussion thread each time to discuss essentially the same things. It's better to keep all discussion related to this in the same thread since it will make it easier for others to participate and comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Is it wrong to even compare and contrast and let the reader infer?
I didn't "argue" that the liner notes and the film--both sources referenced--disagree. I just showed by saying what each said that happened to disagree. That's not OR since I'm just citing my sources. Is there another reason for not highligting difference (explicitly spelled out) between the 2? Once again, there's no longer anything unsourced, nor any explicit inferences. If you have a non-Wiki-standards reason for leaving out the differences, please say so.RobertGustafson (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC) PLEASE ANSWER!
Is my compare-and-contrast omitted because of the mere intention of it? Ostensibly, I'm just citing what the sources say side by side. I let the reader decide if there's an inconsistency. Or don't you trust my sources, even with proper referencing? Or perhaps you're just assuming what I'm doing based on prior conduct alone--which isn't intellectually fair! Must I get other sources, other than the liner notes themselves, to agree on what they say?
Or perhaps you think that the differences between the 2 account simply aren't important or relevant. I could accept that latter. If that's now what it is, please say so. I will not accept, however, that I'm still doing OR when I don't make any explicit inferences about the reliability of the liner notes whatsoever!
PLEASE GET BACK TO ME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- This (the part starting "The liner notes of the DVD are wrought with inaccuracies...") is a textbook example of original research. It is also irrelevant, per WP:UNDUE has been mentioned multiple times on this page – have you had time to have a look at it? Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)]
- I agree that explicitly saying that the liner notes are "inaccurate" is OR; comparing and contrasting the liner notes with the movie, while not drawing any explicit conclusions IS NOT. Nevertheless, you are right that the liner-note content is not worth mentioning as it throws "undue weight" on the article. Also, the disclaimer is not worth including due to its being common in films. I yield on the content issue for those reason, but still contest that OR only exists when a conclusion is explicitly stated--as it is not in the later edits.RobertGustafson (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
No Original Research or Trivia
Despite the many discussion posts created by one editor, above, their wish to include trivial detail and
This post will be updated in the event that a different consensus emerges at
- I was the one who took it to the Noticeboard, not the others (so far as I know). As to the OR issue, that was neutralized when I removed the explicit conclusion about the liner notes and placed a cited "compare and contrast" list in its place. Nevertheless, the differences still constitute inconsequential "trivia" throwing "undue weight", as was later noted, so I agreed to leave them out. I also agreed to leave out the disclaimer, as nearly all modern films carry such disclaimers. Including a point-by-point comparison of the notes and the film, and including the disclaimer, may suggest controversy that doesn't exist.RobertGustafson (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I delineated between human and canine actors
In the cast list, I thought it appropriate to separate the human actors from the live dogs; some contemporary movies, like the latest version of Call of the Wild, use CGI characters in place of live animals--so the distinction is worth noting. Also, I worked to condense the narrative (it isn't easy).