On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:35:48 +0200, nemesis  
<nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>
> The problem I see is that wikipedia simply lacks common sense.  Ok, so  
> that's a encyclopedia thing.

Exactly. Encyclopedias are not about so called "common sense". They are  
collections of verifiable facts, and as such must cite references to said  
facts in order to maintain credibility.

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that  
is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has  
already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is  
true."



> The fact that you have to source someone saying:
[snipped list of perceived similarities]
> rather than simply lookup such info in the works themselves -- pretty  
> much a part of popular "inconscient collective" by now -- doesn't sound  
> credible.

There is no such info in the works themselves. Nowhere in either movie  
does anyone discuss - or even point out - the similarities of the two.

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by  
a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B  
can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C."



> Would the above newsgroups post serve as reference?  A blog entry?

They would be considered to be sources of poor credibility at best, and  
even that is under the assumption that you start with a phrase like "Some  
people have noted similarities...".

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
"self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open  
wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not  
acceptable"



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:35:48 +0200, nemesis 
> <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>> The problem I see is that wikipedia simply lacks common sense.  Ok, so 
>> that's a encyclopedia thing.
> 
> Exactly. Encyclopedias are not about so called "common sense". They are 
> collections of verifiable facts, and as such must cite references to 
> said facts in order to maintain credibility.
> 
>  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not 
> truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to 
> Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether 
> we think it is true."

What could be more verifiable than the work itself?

>> The fact that you have to source someone saying:
> [snipped list of perceived similarities]
>> rather than simply lookup such info in the works themselves -- pretty 
>> much a part of popular "inconscient collective" by now -- doesn't 
>> sound credible.
> 
> There is no such info in the works themselves. Nowhere in either movie 
> does anyone discuss - or even point out - the similarities of the two.

First:  I'm not comparing movies.  I'm comparing the movie The 
Incredibles with comic book Watchmen and comic heroes Fantastic Four. 
I'm not comparing their lame movies with Pixar's masterpiece.

Second:  it's not needed words, let alone in the movies itself, to 
realize similar plots, similar powers, similar names and similar 
uniforms.  How does one quote similar imagery?  It's just needed common 
sense.  Why shouldn't a link to an image of Fantastic Four hosted at 
wikipedia itself suffice as a "citation" in order to show the similarity 
between uniforms and super-powers?

>  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
> "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published 
> by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A 
> and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C."
 >
>> Would the above newsgroups post serve as reference?  A blog entry?
> 
> They would be considered to be sources of poor credibility at best, and 
> even that is under the assumption that you start with a phrase like 
> "Some people have noted similarities...".

Exactly.  I don't think linking to blog posts by fans who know both 
works would gain much relevance.  They only allow it from the mouths of 
the creator or from cinema critics who don't know much about comics. 
Despite any evidence or even images.

>  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
> "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, 
> open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not 
> acceptable"

Indeed.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:04:25 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> If that's not enough for a link, I'll eat my underwear...
>> 
>> Nobody cares how obvious it is. I believe you need to cite sources when
>> you say water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
> 
> I clarified this already elsewhere:  I tried being more polite a second
> time and just listed the shared plot points in the critics sections
> rather than plainly suggesting inspiration.

Maybe they decided that since you'd already tried one version that came 
out and said it was the inspiration without documentation that further 
attempts would be non-objective.

> Still, the only source I can find is the book itself.  You read it and
> you realize the plots are very similar.

"Similar" and "inspired by" are two different things.  We've been over 
that before.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:31:19 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
>> truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to
>> Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether
>> we think it is true."
> 
> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?

The work doesn't state its inspiration.  The work is the work, not a 
"making of the work" work.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:31:19 +0200, nemesis  
<nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>
> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?

The work itself does not provide any comparison to other works.



> First:  I'm not comparing movies.  I'm comparing the movie The  
> Incredibles with comic book Watchmen and comic heroes Fantastic Four.  
> I'm not comparing their lame movies with Pixar's masterpiece.

Irrelevant. There are no such comparisons in the comics either.



> Second:  it's not needed words, let alone in the movies itself, to  
> realize similar plots, similar powers, similar names and similar  
> uniforms.  How does one quote similar imagery?  It's just needed common  
> sense.

Again, encyclopedias are not about "common sense".

*You* have looked at the movies/comics.
*You* have noticed similarities.
That is called "original research", in this case performed by you. Unless  
you can get this "research" published in a credible medium, you will need  
other sources to back up your claims.

The fact that others may share your opinion is irrelevant, unless one of  
them gets it published in a credible medium.



> Why shouldn't a link to an image of Fantastic Four hosted at wikipedia  
> itself suffice as a "citation" in order to show the similarity between  
> uniforms and super-powers?

Because similarity is a matter of opinion. Also, an encyclopedia cannot  
credibly cite itself.



> I don't think linking to blog posts by fans who know both works would  
> gain much relevance.

Because they are not considered credible. Neither are you, for much the  
same reason.


> They only allow it from the mouths of the creator or from cinema critics  
> who don't know much about comics.

Citing the creator is only credible if the point you are backing up is  
"The creator said...".

Citing movie critics is only credible if the point you are backing up is  
"Some movie critics are of the opinion that...".


> Despite any evidence or even images.

An encyclopedia is not the proper medium for presenting evidence.




-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4a10508b$1@news.povray.org...

[...]

> He also denies Fantastic Four, but still you have a family quartet with:

> * similar name for the heroes (Incredible/Fantastic)

I take it "Average Joe" was taken.

> * similar uniforms (different color, i instead of 4)

Besides being both super-dorky, as is common to the genre, how are these
uniforms in any way or form similar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiposter.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watchmencharacters.jpg

> * a super-strong being (Mr. Incredible/The Thing)

A super-strong being in the super hero comic. What are the odds!

I don't doubt there are similarities. And you might be even correct about
direct inspiration. But it's probably next to impossible to prove anything
within such a formula based genre. I am afraid it looks like you are letting
your good judgement be clouded by your contempt for Disney and adoration of
Moore.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4a10508b$1@news.povray.org...
>> He also denies Fantastic Four, but still you have a family quartet with:
>> * similar uniforms (different color, i instead of 4)
> 
> Besides being both super-dorky, as is common to the genre, how are these
> uniforms in any way or form similar?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiposter.jpg
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watchmencharacters.jpg

I was talking in the context of Fantastic Four.

>> * a super-strong being (Mr. Incredible/The Thing)
> 
> A super-strong being in the super hero comic. What are the odds!

The odds are as low as finding one right next to an elastic one and an 
invisible force-field generating another in the very same quartet with a 
very similar dorky costume design.

> I don't doubt there are similarities. And you might be even correct about
> direct inspiration. But it's probably next to impossible to prove anything
> within such a formula based genre. I am afraid it looks like you are letting
> your good judgement be clouded by your contempt for Disney and adoration of
> Moore.

Fantastic Four has nothing to do with Moore.  It was Marvel Comics first 
successful comic book and has spanned a well-known comics doomsday saga 
in the form of the Galactus/Silver Surfer one.

I just find it truly hard to believe people would go on to create a 
super-heroes animation and not pay homage to/be aware of some of the 
best known works in the genre, that's all.

And there's far more comic book references one can distil, for instance:
* the villain Bomb Voyage looks a lot like Batman's The Joker down to 
the large maniacal smile;
* Frozone has similar powers to X-Man Iceman.  This is acknowledged in 
wikipedia, despite no references.
* Gazerbeam has similar powers and similar mask to X-Man Cyclops. 
Someone removed the similarity I one saw in wikipedia.
* Rick Dicker, a government agent in The Incredibles looks a lot like 
Richard Nixon, which is a prominent figure and still in power in 
Watchmen's alternate universe.  The name itself sounds like a pun.
* Mirage has the looks of X-Man Tempest
* Mr Incredible and Frozone are seen remembering old times in the car by 
laughing over old villains.  This scene is pretty much the same as in 
the opening chapter of Watchmen, with retired Nite Owl and Nite Owl II 
having a similar talk.  Page 9 to be exact.  You can read this one in 
chapter one of Watchmen for free on DC's own site:
http://www.dccomics.com/media/excerpts/1462_1.pdf

But I was only interested in Watchmen so far because it turns out I only 
read it now before going to see the movie.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:31:19 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> 
>>> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
>>> truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to
>>> Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether
>>> we think it is true."
>> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?
> 
> The work doesn't state its inspiration.  The work is the work, not a 
> "making of the work" work.

I think by now it's pretty much clear that I dropped altogether trying 
to imply The Incredibles is *inspire by* Watchmen and was just trying to 
list the plot points similarities, right?  Which is not possible, either.

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:31:19 +0200, nemesis 
> <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?
> 
> The work itself does not provide any comparison to other works.

Fine.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:03:39 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> I just find it truly hard to believe people would go on to create a
> super-heroes animation and not pay homage to/be aware of some of the
> best known works in the genre, that's all.

"hard to believe" isn't proof, though.  You seem to be missing that point 
- belief != proof.

Jim

Post a reply to this message