![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Look at Fargo (film). Then look at Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Then look at Ed Gein. then ask “what, exactly, does ‘based on’ mean, if anything?” Qwirkle ( talk) 01:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Compare plot summarized here [to] actual history - this is a very fictionalized story dressed up with some historical vignettes.
Qwirkle (
talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
"very loosely" are WP:WEASEL wordshere.
You reverted to your prefered version with the misleading edit summary “c/e”" - you are incorrect. (I'm sure it was an honest mistake and not a deliberate attempt to deceive). That edit was not a "revert", just a striaght-forward bit of copy-editing. So the summary was not "misleading" it was actually correct.
Your unsupported and personal opinion that the film is "loosely based" on the actual lead characters life are weasel words. And the simple fact remains that the opening title card states; "This story, also, is mostly true". That is what the film tells us. The film does not tell us that it is "loosely based" on the true story. If you've seen the film, and read the lead characters's BLP along with one of the interviews linked within, you would know that the writers have taken some dramatic licence and added fictional elements. That is why the title card says what it says.
With film articles, we often add to the article elements seen in the film, and that is far better than adding our own opinions. You, clearly don't like to be reverted, and are resorting to an edit-war supported by, well... nonsense. You say just above that I need to "explain how a statement within a work of fiction can be taken as a fact outside of the work, except in the trivial sense that the assertion was made within the fiction.
". Uh... wut? The title card statement itself is not part of the fiction. It is part of the opening credits, the very first thing viewers see, before any credits for players and crew. It the producers telling the audience that while the film does follow the story of Tucker, it is not strictly autobiographical.
I dont know how many other ways I can explain this to you. You are either deliberately pretending you do not grasp this, or perhaps you actually don't. I have clearly supported my edit while you have failed to justify your revert, or the need for your revert war.
FTR; I repeatedly requested you come to the talk page early Friday night, but you didn't until the next day, only after you hit 3RR. This has been a completely needless exercise. If you didn't agree with my initial edit, you could've proactively come to the talk page. You didn't. After I reverted you, you could've (per brd) gone to the talk page, but didn't. After I requested a second time that you discuss, you still didn't. And while demanding that I justify my edits, you have failed to justify yours. Your behaviour on your own talk page in relation to this issue has been nothing short of combative and bizarre. Geez... give it a rest already. - wolf 08:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how "Fargo" is relevant here.That kinda sums the problem up, yes. So why not ask someone (else) why it might be, or, better still, wait until someone (else) comments on it. You could do the same for each other point raised, in fact. See if anyone agrees with your personal interpretation of WP:WEASEL...and so forth.
And yes, maybe someone will show up and show how "very loosely" aren't weasel words, somehow, because so far it seems you can't. I would only, possibly, go to AN3 if someone violated 4RR. I never claimed that "I didn't revert anything". I did make a couple of reverts, but the edit you keep claiming was a revert in fact was not. I didn't use 'undo'. The edit history didn't log it as a revert. That was the first time I had ever edited that sentence in the lead, so I was not "reverting back to my preferred version ".
So, do you have anything else to add? Anything collaborative? And mature perhaps? Or will there just be more of your "I'm right and you're wrong because I say so." type stuff? Because that doesn't make for a productive discussion. - wolf 11:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Both sides of the recent edit war have added unsourced or poorly-sourced content to this article:
"...and very loosely based on the true-life story of Forrest Tucker (criminal)adds a "loosely" caveat that is unsourced. The edit summary
"Compare plot summarized here tp actual history - this is a very fictionalized story dressed up with some historical vignettes."indicates that the "loosely" claim is original research.
"...and, as per an opening title card the film, is "mostly a true story" based on the life of Forrest Tucker"seems to be sourced to the movie itself, which is a primary source. Furthermore, it does not include a citation, which means that it fails our most basic verifiability requirement. As Qwirkle pointed out, movies are often presented as "true stories" regardless of their actual veracity. However, it is not our role as editors to assess how accurate this particular movie happens to be.
What we need here is a reliable, independent, secondary source to tell us how closely the film follows real-life events. Until that source is provided, "based on" will have to do. This covers the entire spectrum and follows the sources which are currently used in the article. I would ask involved editors Thewolfchild and Qwirkle to focus their discussion on how reliable sources describe the subject and refrain from using this talk page as a forum to debate the details of its accuracy. – dlthewave ☎ 18:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@
Thewolfchild: has again reverted to his claim that this is a largely factual film with a summary of there are two (2) attached secondary sources. If you want to challenge them, WP:RSN is the place.)
Neither source does more than note that the film makes the claim. The first,
The Old Man & The Gun' Is A Soulful Tribute To Robert Redford's Movies, leaving aside the problems of provenance, merely emphasizes the tie-in with an earlier Redford film, as does the second,
The Sundown Kid: Robert Redford returns to robbing banks in David Lowery's 'The Old Man & the Gun. Someone merely noting a films claims does nothing to bolster them. This is still at the level of proof of actual accuracy we see in Fargo orThe Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Qwirkle (
talk) 17:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
claim that this is a largely factual film"...? - wolf 17:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
And those aren't "my words in the lead", they are a well-supported quote from the film itself. - wolf 18:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This isnt a quote about the accuracy of the film, it’s about its connection to other works, as anyone...no, almost anyone, obviously, who reads it in context can see. Qwirkle ( talk) 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
And repeatedly edit-warring to remove sourced content and push that which is solely your own OR/POV is tendentious and obnoxious. drop the stick. - wolf 01:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
You are past the point of.being disruptive. Stop edit-warring and go to the talk page.)when you still haven’t addressed the point raised a day or two before except by reverting edits.
The source doesn't necessarily support your edit, except as a claim made in the film, and one that may be made entirely for cinematic reasons, not fact. Qwirkle ( talk) 02:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Here are a few things which need to be adressed.*Your wording has several possible meanings, some of which are untrue. The “present” of the film is almost entirely fiction, it is not “mostly true”. (The same can not be said of the flashbacks, which appear to be largely factual.)
and, as per an opening title card the story, which is "mostly true",, while the source says “ “This story, also, is mostly true.” That “also” needs explaining, and the first source you used, Huffponian demi-blogshite though it may be, does not disappoint.
The opening frameBefore we even glimpse Redford, “The Old Man & the Gun” fires off a subtle ode to one of his most celebrated movies, the 1969 western “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.”
Audiences had swooned over Redford two years earlier in the romantic comedy “Barefoot in the Park,” co-starring Jane Fonda, but it was his turn as the taciturn outlaw known as the Sundance Kid that enshrined the actor in pop culture. The character said little, yet Redford’s dapper face spoke volumes ― something only a first-rate movie star can pull off.
“Butch Cassidy” opens with the announcement “Most of what follows is true.” In tribute, “The Old Man & the Gun” begins with an azure title card and yellow text that reads “This story, also, is mostly true.”
“It’s a direct reference to ‘Butch and Sundance,’” Lowery said.
Is this what I can expect going forward? Whining about "strawmen", looong patches of meaninginless quote that no one is going to read, all with a persistent, undying sneer of "fuck you" from beginning to end? Your behaviour is appalling, whether its disruptive revert-warring here, or the sophomoric nonsense on your own talk page, let's face it, if you had a list of the top 3 things you'd like to accomplish here, cooperative discourse would come in at about... #17. I however, am willing to try and work with you here. You complained about the quote, so... how about some dots? Would dots make you feel better about it? Dots? - wolf 03:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not support the passage being in the first sentence of the lead section. It is extremely shoehorned in and unnecessary to point out upfront. If anything, Robert Redford needs to be mentioned more upfront because he is the key notability factor for the film per WP:LEAD. (David Lowery is nowhere near that.) The first paragraph should name Redford, Lowery, the other actors, the source material for the film. The second paragraph should cover historical accuracy, critical reception, awards, etc. There could be more paragraphs, but the historical-accuracy summary should be after the first paragraph. A quick search engine test shows results like this and this that could make up a "Historical accuracy" section that can then be summarized in the middle of the lead section. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding one of the sources, Matthew Jacobs’s The Old Man & The Gun' Is A Soulful Tribute To Robert Redford's Movies, @ Erik:, whadduhya think? It’s Huffpo, and Huffpo is notorious for has-beens, wannabes, no-hopers, and suchlike blogshite, but there are real exceptions. Is Mr. Jacobs one of them? Qwirkle ( talk) 18:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
This is stll misrepresenting the accuracy of the film, misusing commentary on a stylistic device to do so. Qwirkle ( talk) 16:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Look at Fargo (film). Then look at Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Then look at Ed Gein. then ask “what, exactly, does ‘based on’ mean, if anything?” Qwirkle ( talk) 01:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Compare plot summarized here [to] actual history - this is a very fictionalized story dressed up with some historical vignettes.
Qwirkle (
talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
"very loosely" are WP:WEASEL wordshere.
You reverted to your prefered version with the misleading edit summary “c/e”" - you are incorrect. (I'm sure it was an honest mistake and not a deliberate attempt to deceive). That edit was not a "revert", just a striaght-forward bit of copy-editing. So the summary was not "misleading" it was actually correct.
Your unsupported and personal opinion that the film is "loosely based" on the actual lead characters life are weasel words. And the simple fact remains that the opening title card states; "This story, also, is mostly true". That is what the film tells us. The film does not tell us that it is "loosely based" on the true story. If you've seen the film, and read the lead characters's BLP along with one of the interviews linked within, you would know that the writers have taken some dramatic licence and added fictional elements. That is why the title card says what it says.
With film articles, we often add to the article elements seen in the film, and that is far better than adding our own opinions. You, clearly don't like to be reverted, and are resorting to an edit-war supported by, well... nonsense. You say just above that I need to "explain how a statement within a work of fiction can be taken as a fact outside of the work, except in the trivial sense that the assertion was made within the fiction.
". Uh... wut? The title card statement itself is not part of the fiction. It is part of the opening credits, the very first thing viewers see, before any credits for players and crew. It the producers telling the audience that while the film does follow the story of Tucker, it is not strictly autobiographical.
I dont know how many other ways I can explain this to you. You are either deliberately pretending you do not grasp this, or perhaps you actually don't. I have clearly supported my edit while you have failed to justify your revert, or the need for your revert war.
FTR; I repeatedly requested you come to the talk page early Friday night, but you didn't until the next day, only after you hit 3RR. This has been a completely needless exercise. If you didn't agree with my initial edit, you could've proactively come to the talk page. You didn't. After I reverted you, you could've (per brd) gone to the talk page, but didn't. After I requested a second time that you discuss, you still didn't. And while demanding that I justify my edits, you have failed to justify yours. Your behaviour on your own talk page in relation to this issue has been nothing short of combative and bizarre. Geez... give it a rest already. - wolf 08:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how "Fargo" is relevant here.That kinda sums the problem up, yes. So why not ask someone (else) why it might be, or, better still, wait until someone (else) comments on it. You could do the same for each other point raised, in fact. See if anyone agrees with your personal interpretation of WP:WEASEL...and so forth.
And yes, maybe someone will show up and show how "very loosely" aren't weasel words, somehow, because so far it seems you can't. I would only, possibly, go to AN3 if someone violated 4RR. I never claimed that "I didn't revert anything". I did make a couple of reverts, but the edit you keep claiming was a revert in fact was not. I didn't use 'undo'. The edit history didn't log it as a revert. That was the first time I had ever edited that sentence in the lead, so I was not "reverting back to my preferred version ".
So, do you have anything else to add? Anything collaborative? And mature perhaps? Or will there just be more of your "I'm right and you're wrong because I say so." type stuff? Because that doesn't make for a productive discussion. - wolf 11:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Both sides of the recent edit war have added unsourced or poorly-sourced content to this article:
"...and very loosely based on the true-life story of Forrest Tucker (criminal)adds a "loosely" caveat that is unsourced. The edit summary
"Compare plot summarized here tp actual history - this is a very fictionalized story dressed up with some historical vignettes."indicates that the "loosely" claim is original research.
"...and, as per an opening title card the film, is "mostly a true story" based on the life of Forrest Tucker"seems to be sourced to the movie itself, which is a primary source. Furthermore, it does not include a citation, which means that it fails our most basic verifiability requirement. As Qwirkle pointed out, movies are often presented as "true stories" regardless of their actual veracity. However, it is not our role as editors to assess how accurate this particular movie happens to be.
What we need here is a reliable, independent, secondary source to tell us how closely the film follows real-life events. Until that source is provided, "based on" will have to do. This covers the entire spectrum and follows the sources which are currently used in the article. I would ask involved editors Thewolfchild and Qwirkle to focus their discussion on how reliable sources describe the subject and refrain from using this talk page as a forum to debate the details of its accuracy. – dlthewave ☎ 18:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@
Thewolfchild: has again reverted to his claim that this is a largely factual film with a summary of there are two (2) attached secondary sources. If you want to challenge them, WP:RSN is the place.)
Neither source does more than note that the film makes the claim. The first,
The Old Man & The Gun' Is A Soulful Tribute To Robert Redford's Movies, leaving aside the problems of provenance, merely emphasizes the tie-in with an earlier Redford film, as does the second,
The Sundown Kid: Robert Redford returns to robbing banks in David Lowery's 'The Old Man & the Gun. Someone merely noting a films claims does nothing to bolster them. This is still at the level of proof of actual accuracy we see in Fargo orThe Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Qwirkle (
talk) 17:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
claim that this is a largely factual film"...? - wolf 17:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
And those aren't "my words in the lead", they are a well-supported quote from the film itself. - wolf 18:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This isnt a quote about the accuracy of the film, it’s about its connection to other works, as anyone...no, almost anyone, obviously, who reads it in context can see. Qwirkle ( talk) 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
And repeatedly edit-warring to remove sourced content and push that which is solely your own OR/POV is tendentious and obnoxious. drop the stick. - wolf 01:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
You are past the point of.being disruptive. Stop edit-warring and go to the talk page.)when you still haven’t addressed the point raised a day or two before except by reverting edits.
The source doesn't necessarily support your edit, except as a claim made in the film, and one that may be made entirely for cinematic reasons, not fact. Qwirkle ( talk) 02:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Here are a few things which need to be adressed.*Your wording has several possible meanings, some of which are untrue. The “present” of the film is almost entirely fiction, it is not “mostly true”. (The same can not be said of the flashbacks, which appear to be largely factual.)
and, as per an opening title card the story, which is "mostly true",, while the source says “ “This story, also, is mostly true.” That “also” needs explaining, and the first source you used, Huffponian demi-blogshite though it may be, does not disappoint.
The opening frameBefore we even glimpse Redford, “The Old Man & the Gun” fires off a subtle ode to one of his most celebrated movies, the 1969 western “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.”
Audiences had swooned over Redford two years earlier in the romantic comedy “Barefoot in the Park,” co-starring Jane Fonda, but it was his turn as the taciturn outlaw known as the Sundance Kid that enshrined the actor in pop culture. The character said little, yet Redford’s dapper face spoke volumes ― something only a first-rate movie star can pull off.
“Butch Cassidy” opens with the announcement “Most of what follows is true.” In tribute, “The Old Man & the Gun” begins with an azure title card and yellow text that reads “This story, also, is mostly true.”
“It’s a direct reference to ‘Butch and Sundance,’” Lowery said.
Is this what I can expect going forward? Whining about "strawmen", looong patches of meaninginless quote that no one is going to read, all with a persistent, undying sneer of "fuck you" from beginning to end? Your behaviour is appalling, whether its disruptive revert-warring here, or the sophomoric nonsense on your own talk page, let's face it, if you had a list of the top 3 things you'd like to accomplish here, cooperative discourse would come in at about... #17. I however, am willing to try and work with you here. You complained about the quote, so... how about some dots? Would dots make you feel better about it? Dots? - wolf 03:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not support the passage being in the first sentence of the lead section. It is extremely shoehorned in and unnecessary to point out upfront. If anything, Robert Redford needs to be mentioned more upfront because he is the key notability factor for the film per WP:LEAD. (David Lowery is nowhere near that.) The first paragraph should name Redford, Lowery, the other actors, the source material for the film. The second paragraph should cover historical accuracy, critical reception, awards, etc. There could be more paragraphs, but the historical-accuracy summary should be after the first paragraph. A quick search engine test shows results like this and this that could make up a "Historical accuracy" section that can then be summarized in the middle of the lead section. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding one of the sources, Matthew Jacobs’s The Old Man & The Gun' Is A Soulful Tribute To Robert Redford's Movies, @ Erik:, whadduhya think? It’s Huffpo, and Huffpo is notorious for has-beens, wannabes, no-hopers, and suchlike blogshite, but there are real exceptions. Is Mr. Jacobs one of them? Qwirkle ( talk) 18:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
This is stll misrepresenting the accuracy of the film, misusing commentary on a stylistic device to do so. Qwirkle ( talk) 16:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)