Talk:Choke (2008 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

yet-published?

Chuck Palahniuk sold feature film rights to his yet-published book Choke

"yet-published" doesn't mean anything. Should it be "then-unpublished"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.31.229.4 (talk • contribs) 15:52, July 18, 2007

I've fixed it accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Production schedule

I find it amusing that first hand account as well as copy of first day of production schedule fails to convince Eric that Choke is in production. Wondering if her bothered to read the information on the production schedule.209.212.28.50 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil in your discussions. The production schedule is not acceptable as a reliable source for the film article because it is not verifiable as a true schedule for the film. There is no public coverage of the details of this production schedule, which is not even readable. Also, the additions of the release date in 2008 and one actor as Denny are not verifiable, either. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You said that the film was covered in West Orange Chronicle and The Star Ledger. I have searched for headlines from these, but was unable to find any. Do you have any independent, secondary sources covering the film instead? I'm not denying that production began, but a picture of a piece of paper is not a reliable source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you took the time you can read all the information, have done it many, many times (unless you need a new computer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.50 (talk • contribs) 12:58, August 2, 2007

Like I've said, a picture of a piece of paper would not stand up to scrutiny. It does not qualify as a reliable source for inclusion. Independent, secondary coverage is needed. Even if such coverage included this information, the details are indiscriminate and not appropriate for the encyclopedic context of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I have exhausted my 3RR limit for the day, I'd like to request any visiting editor to evaluate the merits of this production schedule information, and if they agree with me, to revert back to the revision without the schedule. It is more appropriate to include print and online sources of independent, secondary coverage than it is to include a picture of a piece of paper, which does not meet verifiability standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Added reference to Friday's Newark Star-Ledger (August 3, 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.50 (talk • contribs) 11:48, August 7, 2007

I have implemented information from the Star-Ledger article, but I still do not consider the production schedule scan to be a reliable source. I've requested for the image's evaluation at the reliable sources noticeboard. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So far from secondary sources (Star-Ledger) 75% of the information supplies has been verified - but for some reason, you feel personally responsible for deleting information and only grudginly admitting that 1) yes this film is in production 2) Being producted in NJ, 3) Admitting to where the location are actually being filmed. Why do you not admit that the remaining 20% is accurate and leave it alone. I can go back throught this history and point out the number of times you have deleted the information only to find out that you have been wrong (numberous times) and you had to fix (or reedite) what you deleted 209.212.28.50 15:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not understanding the dispute here. The image is not verifiable as a threshold for inclusion (see WP:V) because it is an image that appears to have been illegally released into the public domain by your sockpuppet Richard Deagon (whom you used to circumvent the 3RR block; see report) where there was no indication that this production schedule is meant for public consumption. Before this image even became an issue, I never doubted that production began in New Jersey -- I edited that information in beforehand, and I've implemented the Star-Ledger reference because it is an appropriate reliable source to draw upon. The scanned image does not count, and it has been reported as a possibly non-free image. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)