Jump to content

Talk:Little Jack Horner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Color me skeptical

[edit]

The claim that this rhyme is about a real person named Horner--presented here as fact--strikes me as something that very much needs a cite from a reputable source. It has the air of a not-so-very-old urban legend, like the (false) claim that Ring Around the Rosie is about the Black Death.

The many joke versions of the poem need citation too--without some indication that these parodies are notable, they should just go. Nareek 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a website giving the "real person" theory:

Beware, there is a horrible pop-up on that page. Ogg 19:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Horner

[edit]

Have added a reference to Jacob Horner, the protagonist of John Barth's second book, The End of the Road. --Teetotaler

little jack horner sat in the corner eating a christmas pie he stuck in his phumb and pulled out a plumb and said what a good boy am i —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.17.35 (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopaedic allusions

[edit]

I repeat Nareek's remark above: The many joke versions of the poem need citation too--without some indication that these parodies are notable, they should just go.

Mere allusion, whether by writers of reputation or Tin-Pan-Alley lyricists, do not extend our knowledge of the rhyme or demonstrate a new creative use and have no place in an encyclopaedia. Since they do not meet the WP:IINFO guidelines on indiscriminate collection of information, they have been purged from this article and further repetitions will be deleted too. The reference to Lord Byron's allusion may be taken to cover every unnoteworthy use since then. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With you on that one.--SabreBD (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little Jack Horner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunism

[edit]

This article doesn't say anything about how a boy pulling out a plum from his Christmas pie equates to opportunism. I know there is a metaphor of the "plum assignment," but that doesn't appear here. 67.208.31.164 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Blockhaj is trying to force through an "In popular culture" subsection in ways that transgress all kinds of editorial guidance:

  1. Since a nursery rhyme is already part of popular culture, such a title is inappropriate
  2. There needs to be a reliable source that says that the character in the film is meant to be a grown-up version of the nursery rhyme character. Another WP article is not considered reliable because anyone can edit here
  3. Details of who voices the character, and other details from the film, are definitely WP:OFFTOPIC in an article which is supposed to be only about the nursery rhyme
  4. The consequent length of the entry gives WP:UNDUE weight to the film
  5. The proper procedure where there is a difference of opinion over editorial appropriateness is to discuss the matter here, not to argue the case as part of the edit summary

Blockhaj has been editing on WP since 2018 and really should be acquainted with editorial guidelines by now. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your framing of this as @Blockhaj "trying to force through" some text seems a tad stong: so far as I can see, Blockhaj has simply reverted you on one occasion, with a reasoned revert. That said, I agree that the proposed subsection is improper, as it quite clearly fails MOS:CULTURALREFS. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MichaelMaggs. What Blockhaj had done in the way of starting an edit war was to copy and paste FishandChipper's reverted edit from 24 January. Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing it to "Adaptations" then? Other characters like Puss in Boots, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Humpty Dumpty etc all mention the films, with Humpty Dumpty being an especially poignant example for also being a nursery rhyme. I think this is just random pettyness for no reason and will be reinstating the section with the new title. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 18:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You make no attempt to address infringement of the guidelines listed above, however the section might be retitled. Another guideline mentions that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" such as the trivia you wish to insert. At the most, a very brief mention of the film character might be acceptable, if you can provide a reliable source to substantiate that there is a connection to the nursery rhyme. Please be aware that WP:Edit warring against guidelines is not a good idea. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't indiscriminate, if Horner was simply a minor character or a cameo in the movie then sure you could make that argument but he is clearly one of if not the main antagonist of the movie. Also it's bad practice to tell others to not edit war when you start the edit war lmao FishandChipper 🐟🍟 20:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the pop culture bit is warranted. We normally look for WP:SECONDARY confirmation that the media have been looking at the issue, to show that the issue is important to the topic. I'm seeing such confirmation at the Collider article which is clearly about the character depicted in the rhyme. This is not a case where the character is merely listed somewhere. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I spend a lot of time (a LOT) removing poorly supported pop culture. That's not what I'm seeing here! The disputed pop culture bit is definitely supported by an uninvolved media source. It should stay in. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! All of Sweetpool's arguments seem to be for a completely different article. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 21:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, Binksternet, you're an example to other editors. That article has exactly what is needed with its focus on the nursery rhyme and the continuation in character. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm yeah sweetie, but sorry you havent seen the film but they are absolutely a character b ased On The Film because They even say the Rhyme in the Film. 2600:8801:1389:9800:99A5:5165:C90:3384 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative histories

[edit]

It seems that the new section has attracted more disruptive edits than the article has ever known. In order to miminimise this, I'd like to propose a rewrite to Binksternet and FishandChipper which focuses mainly on character change rather than details of the film itself. To begin with, Horner's appearance in the film clearly belongs in the "Alternative histories" section of the article as a later derivative of the nursery rhyme character. There it might read, with appropriate sourcing, as a separate paragraph that sets Horner's appearance in a new context: "In 2022, an adult version of the character appears as a major antagonist in the Universal Pictures/DreamWorks Animation movie Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.<ref 34> In this he has grown up to be the evil owner of his own pie-selling business and calls himself "Big" Jack Horner, in full reaction to his childhood reputation in the nursery rhyme.<ref 35> The link to the film provides all the other details an interested reader might require without straying into WP:UNDUE emphasis. Would this be an acceptable solution? Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in principle, absolutely, assuming the sources are OK. The disruption is coming from editors who want to turn this into another article about the film, and your suggestion properly returns the focus to the derivative version of the original character. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film says that character labels such as "antagonist" should be avoided. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction says that we should tie fictional characters to the real world as much as possible, which in this case might be naming John Mulaney as the voice actor. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS deprecates such labels only in a cast list, which the proposed para is not. The second source calls Jack a villain, so we have sanction for that word - or it even quotes "irredeemable monster" from the film. But since the aim here is to focus back on the reference to the nursery rhyme character (not "the real world"), to mention the film actor who plays him is WP:OFFTOPIC. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the part where you build consensus by agreeing with people. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I and MichaelMaggs are agreed that the new version should not draw unnecessary attention to the film other than as an update of Horner's personality. My sourced proposal for the first sentence is now "In 2022, an adult version of Jack Horner appears as a major villain" in the movie, where there is no need at all to mention who voices the character. Since it was your insistence on your breadth of experience that called down all the disruption in the first place, I suggest you now play your part towards reaching consensus by listening to our proposals for righting the damage. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair block of the article.

[edit]
Block evasion by Special:Contributions/94.36.0.0/18 using other Italian IPs.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why my edit on the article has been reverted and the article has been even protected? There was no disruptive vandalism, just a case of a user confusing one for another, people who come to edit an article for the first time cannot be considered disruptive vandals. Jack Horner is the main antagonist, not a major antagonist in Puss in Boots: The Last Wish. 151.36.154.191 (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that you and other editors ignore the fact that this article is about the nursery rhyme, not the film. If you want to comment on the film, go to Puss in Boots: The Last Wish. The article has been protected until we can make this fact clear. In addition, you should look at WP:RS, which makes clear that sources are required for any of your additions; your own opinions are not welcome and that's another reason why your edit was reversed. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I and other people knew and know that, that's why we specifically edited the section focused on the character in Puss in Boots: The Last Wish. Plus, there's no need of any sources to specify the role of the character in said film.151.82.103.230 (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. See MOS:CULTURALREFS MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are the main reason the article got locked down, by insisting repeatedly on excessive descriptions such as "sadistic, ruthless and both ego and megalomaniacal".[1][2][3] That style is not encyclopedic. We will never allow that kind of description.
You also got yourself blocked from the article Ken Akamatsu for a year, be being similarly disruptive in the Italian IP range Special:Contributions/151.34.0.0/16, and before that you got blocked completely in the Italian IP range Special:Contributions/94.36.0.0/18, the expiration of which is coming up in five days. So your contributions here have all been a form of block evasion, and should be reverted on sight per WP:BANREVERT. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that a character is the main antagonist or protagonist of any story even when it's obvious that they are? I'm pretty sure a lot of articles on Wikipedia don't have it and never required that. Plus, yours is a very serious accusation, none of my automatic IP addresses have any past edits on Ken Akamatsu, never did any, and we're not all the same, this seems an attempt to stop me from continuing the discussion and seems almost a threat. Plus, am I really the main reason the article got blocked down? I edited it only two times and a lot of users came before me, and I simply agreed with the previos descriptions, how can you say I'm the main reason? If you really wanted people not to use those words for not being encyclopedic, you should have left it written in the post-edit/revert explanation, so people would understand and would not repeat the same mistake. 151.68.127.23 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so overdramatic. Nobody is "threatening" you. It's common Wikipedia practice to cite a character's role in the story, if there are articles that don't have it then it should be added to those articles. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 18:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 151.58.127.23 (talk), this page being protected was unfair and even if this article was mainly about the nursery rhyme and not the film version, it did have have a section of the film version on it and Jack Horner is in fact the main antagonist of the film Puss in Boots: The Last Wish and also the film did portray him as being megalomaniacal, ruthless, sadistic, and narcissistic, and if you don't believe me go watch the movie. Us IP addresses are not a threat to Wikipedia at all, we just wanted to improve the article. 95.151.194.14 (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Go watch the movie" is not an valid argument to add detailed material about the film to this page. It's WP:OFFTOPIC, risks giving WP:UNDUE weight to a portrayal that's existed for less than two months, and doesn't comply with MOS:CULTURALREFS. Film-related details should go in Puss in Boots: The Last Wish. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MichaelMaggs (talk),

Why should film details go in "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish" when there is literally a section of Jack Horner's film version on this article. Here's the section if you can't find it, Little Jack Horner#Adaptation. 95.151.195.14 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Horner 1694

[edit]

A previous editor discovered a reference to Jack Horner in a 1694 advertisment for "Wood Cuts...New and Old Songs...Children's Play Books". Using just the bare name, as it now stands, would be WP:Original research. However, it's a fruitful item to follow up, since the WP article only carries mention of the rhyme as far back as 1725. If such an item, published by S. Gamidge at the end of the 17th century, could be traced and examined, it might shed further light on the character. Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at details of this printer and discovered that Google Books give a false publication date. Samuel Gamidge was a Worcester publisher who flourished in the second half of the 18th century. Therefore his nursery rhyme item (whatever it is) adds nothing to what is already known. Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the date 1694 is mentioned within the text, but that is not the date of printing. The actual printing date appears to have been chopped off during digitisation, but from the chapbook style, 18th century sounds right. A shame - I was excited to see it initially! MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably The Pleasant History of Jack Horner to which we already have a reference. Our copy was printed in London for a Derby bookseller, but I suppose Gamidge could have bought the sheets and put his own title page on them. There's a reference to the work and to Gamidge at the start of Street Literature of the Long 19th Century. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Desire to expand on film vers.

[edit]

As opposed to the ridiculous edit wars above, I want to advocate for an expanded section on the film due to how well the film coincides with some of the more complex themes of the original rhyme. This is sourced, verifiable information - purists need to get over the fact that the film is absolutely relevant to the entire mythos of this rhyme.

Imagine not including a section on the Downey Jr's Iron Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe on the official Iron Man page. 2603:300C:1305:F800:7884:C125:4C3D:CC72 (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not out of the question, and there may be something that could be extracted from the quite lengthy cited source, but that source does not support "thus tying his themes into a natural progression of the original nursery rhyme": that's WP:OR. As discussed above, any extended paragraph should focus on the character and character development, not the film per se. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sweetpool50 may like to contribute here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fine. But my point moreso has to do with the fact that a huge majority of people now know the character (or were at least reminded of his significance in terms of Nursery Rhymes) by the film. It is absolutely, without question the most prolific depiction of the character ever made, or at the very least in our own time. Again, it's like if the 'Iron Man' page went into great detail about minor appearances in shows or other media, but only had a single sentnce saying "Robert Downey Jr portrays the character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In the films, he is smart." This article does not need long, overdone descriptions for 50 other versions of Jack but only a single sentence, that does no justice to the herculean, shakesperian character John Mulaney portrayed, but also does not go into detail in how the character masterfully weaves into the themes of the original poem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300C:1305:F800:7884:C125:4C3D:CC72 (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article on the film and that is where discussion of character development should go, if it can be properly sourced. In this article, which is about the character in the rhyme, any prolonged discussion of the film's plot is against the editorial guidelines WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:UNDUE and, as mentioned already, WP:OR. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Little_Jack_Horner&oldid=1221680891"