 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I tried updating the wikipedia entry on The Incredibles with the
following update:
A more direct inspiration is the comic book masterpiece Watchmen, by
Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. In it, super-heroes are banned and living
common life, a plot to secretly kill heroes is going on, there's a
mysterious Island where a threatening menace is being created (not in
the Watchmen movie though), the plan of the "villain" itself being to
lie to people that they are under attack so that he can secretly realize
his fantasy of being hero of the world. The main differences being that
Watchmen's "villain" truly turns out to save the world by way of his
machiavelic plan and that no hero is truly super: the only one with true
superpower couldn't care less for mankind or living organisms. Even the
"no cape" is from Watchmen, as one of the hooded crime busters of the
past is shot to death as his cape gets entangled in a bank's revolving
door. The Omnidroid closely resembles the organic life-form the
Watchmen's "villain" has built, tentacles, monocular vision and size
matching.
I tried inserting the above paragraph at wikipedia's entry for The
Incredible's, section "Brad Bird's inspiration" but I was faced with
heavy monitoring from wikipedia bastard moderators. I am under the
assumption they work for Disney, as they don't care to verify the
sources themselves. Really, that's not original, non-verifiable
research: it's simply the description of the plot of both works, except
that the one from Watchmen is from 1987, from an acclaimed comic book.
You can see it in this revision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Incredibles&oldid=290153780#Brad_Bird.27s_inspiration
here's the wikipedia entry for Watchmen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen
and here's the bastard wikipedia minion exerting its lame act on behalf
of Disney integrity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:201.47.188.2
Would some of you join me in trying to bring this issue to light and
overcome wikipedia's moderating lameness?
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Really, that's not original, non-verifiable research
Some actual references would probably help proving that.
"Original research" doesn't mean "hard to prove" or "questionable".
It means that you gave no references to other respectable sources to base
your text on.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Really, that's not original, non-verifiable research
>
> Some actual references would probably help proving that.
>
> "Original research" doesn't mean "hard to prove" or "questionable".
> It means that you gave no references to other respectable sources to base
> your text on.
I gave wikipedia's own Watchmen entry. Yeah, not respectable at all.
Strange trying to find out about Watchmen. The DC site says nothing:
http://www.dccomics.com/sites/watchmen/?action=graphic_novel
Not even a basic overview or something. Why should such an iconic work
deserve one after all?
And Amazon is pretty much all about consumer review, surely not
respectable, despite statistics:
http://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Alan-Moore/dp/0930289234
Don't know where else to try. Shouldn't they just read the damn thing
to get references? How do they allow for articles on books anyway?
It's a well-known plot, it's even one of Time magazine's top 100 20th
century books:
http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/0,24459,watchmen,00.html
BTW, only right now, some 20 years later I read it. I needed to, in
order to watch the movie. Just like with The Lord of the Rings.
There's a pile of literature that movies just keep prompting me to read
and that's the best this industry has to offer, because otherwise the
original works are superior in every respect.
Bland, superficial and Hollywoodian takes like Zack Snyder's port or The
Incredible's "homage" truly don't make that masterpiece any justice. I
don't quite understand why I didn't pick it up then, I read Frank
Miller's Batman: The return of the Dark Knight by that same time frame...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I gave wikipedia's own Watchmen entry. Yeah, not respectable at all.
>
I don't see The Incredibles mentioned in the Watchmen article, so that can't
be a source for "The Incredibles was inspired by Watchmen".
And Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable source for content added to
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_source_information_from_Wikipedia
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:21:56 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> And Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable source for content added to
> Wikipedia:
That would be kinda self-reinforcing, wouldn't it?
"Excuse me, Mr. President, in the dictionary under 'redundant' it says
'see redundant'." -- Robin Williams
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> I gave wikipedia's own Watchmen entry. Yeah, not respectable at all.
>>
>
> I don't see The Incredibles mentioned in the Watchmen article, so that can't
> be a source for "The Incredibles was inspired by Watchmen".
The Watchmen entry contains the plot details (that I don't find anywhere
else but in the comic book itself). That's all that's needed. The rest
is up to one's own judgment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> I gave wikipedia's own Watchmen entry. Yeah, not respectable at all.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see The Incredibles mentioned in the Watchmen article, so that
>> can't
>> be a source for "The Incredibles was inspired by Watchmen".
>
> The Watchmen entry contains the plot details (that I don't find anywhere
> else but in the comic book itself). That's all that's needed. The rest
> is up to one's own judgment.
BTW, this metacircular referential argumentation begs the question: how
are most works plots inserted into wikipedia? If they simply say the
reference for the plot is the work itself, then I guess it is ok to see
an overview of Watchmen's plot by linking to the wikipedia entry, since
the entry itself references the work ultimately.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:21:56 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
>> And Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable source for content added to
>> Wikipedia:
>
> That would be kinda self-reinforcing, wouldn't it?
The point is not to add content to wikipedia based on wikipedia content.
The wikipedia content at question is merely a plot overview. I'm just
saying there that "The incredibles" has a very similar plot to Watchmen
and for the purpose of illustration I link to the plot overview in the
wikipedia entry for Watchmen. Which itself has no other reference than
the work itself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I tried updating the wikipedia entry on The Incredibles with the
> following update:
>
> A more direct inspiration is the comic book masterpiece Watchmen, by
> Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. In it, super-heroes are banned and living
> common life, a plot to secretly kill heroes is going on, there's a
> mysterious Island where a threatening menace is being created (not in
> the Watchmen movie though), the plan of the "villain" itself being to
> lie to people that they are under attack so that he can secretly realize
> his fantasy of being hero of the world. The main differences being that
> Watchmen's "villain" truly turns out to save the world by way of his
> machiavelic plan and that no hero is truly super: the only one with true
> superpower couldn't care less for mankind or living organisms. Even the
> "no cape" is from Watchmen, as one of the hooded crime busters of the
> past is shot to death as his cape gets entangled in a bank's revolving
> door. The Omnidroid closely resembles the organic life-form the
> Watchmen's "villain" has built, tentacles, monocular vision and size
> matching.
>
> I tried inserting the above paragraph at wikipedia's entry for The
> Incredible's, section "Brad Bird's inspiration" but I was faced with
> heavy monitoring from wikipedia bastard moderators. I am under the
> assumption they work for Disney, as they don't care to verify the
> sources themselves. Really, that's not original, non-verifiable
> research: it's simply the description of the plot of both works, except
> that the one from Watchmen is from 1987, from an acclaimed comic book.
>
> You can see it in this revision:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Incredibles&oldid=290153780#Brad_Bird.27s_inspiration
>
>
> here's the wikipedia entry for Watchmen:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen
>
> and here's the bastard wikipedia minion exerting its lame act on behalf
> of Disney integrity:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:201.47.188.2
>
> Would some of you join me in trying to bring this issue to light and
> overcome wikipedia's moderating lameness?
The fun never stops:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Incredibles&action=history
Not even in the talk page is permitted the mention to the similarity of
the two works plots.
bunch of nazis...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:21:56 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>>> And Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable source for content added to
>>> Wikipedia:
>>
>> That would be kinda self-reinforcing, wouldn't it?
>
> The point is not to add content to wikipedia based on wikipedia content.
> The wikipedia content at question is merely a plot overview. I'm just
> saying there that "The incredibles" has a very similar plot to Watchmen
> and for the purpose of illustration I link to the plot overview in the
> wikipedia entry for Watchmen. Which itself has no other reference than
> the work itself.
The problem is that because of the nature of Wikipedia, if you create an
entry that says "All elephants are blue" and cite another Wikipedia
article that contains that assertion as a source, you're not really
citing a source.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
