Talk:The Spanish Prisoner

Factual basis

I removed this category as it is completely unimportant to the article or the film. The extreme marginality of importance of claims such as

No tranquilizer dart is sufficiently fast-acting that it could prevent a man from pulling the trigger of a pistol

would open the door to inserting that line into every single film in the history of cinema in which there is a character shot with a tranquilizer gun. Since an average film is about 90-120 minutes in lenghth, no filmmaker can spare 5 full minutes of it to show us the effect of a tranquilizer. SWik78 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored this section, which is factual. The opinion of SWiki78 is a personal one. His explanation of why it should be deleted ignores the interest that so many moviegoers have with the accuracy and continuity of films, even if some situations are inconvenient for filmmakers to portray realistically. I am guessing that Mammet used the Marshals Service in his screenplay to avoid confusion because there was already a gang of FBI imposters involved in the plot, but this portrayal may confuse some viewers about the role of Marshal's Service. --Zeamays (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify the issue. To begin with, we do not have a citation that discusses the scope of the US Marshals' Service while describing its incorrect application in the film. Therefore, the problem arises of synthesis, as the author is making a connection between one piece of information and another that aren't explicit in both.

Additionally, no citation whatsoever is made for the rather extraordinary remark that "no tranquilizer dart is sufficiently fast-acting that it could prevent a man from pulling the trigger of a pistol". Were a citation found - again, speaking in terms of the film - were to explicitly state such a thing, we could include it, Without such, we cannot.

To that end, the material has been removed again. It should not be added again unless substantive citations are located that support the inclusion of the removed material. Here is a list of reviews from Rotten Tomatoes, which might aid in that search. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the synthesis claim, it is obvious that Arcayne has not read the transcript of the Kojo Nnamdi radio program, since the United States Marshals Service representative was asked explicitly about the portrayal of the Marshalls service in this movie. He stated categorically that the Marshalls Service does not investigate crimes of this nature and has nothing to do with intellectual property theft. He stated that such a theft would be a state offense. This is a substantive citation. Therefore, I will reinstate this part of the material that was deleted.

The statement about the rate of action of a drug is fairly obvious to anyone with a knowledge of pharmacokinetics (without any research) and who has seen the movie, but I will not reinstate that section at this time. --Zeamays (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In reference to your claim that I have not read the transcript of the Kojo Nnamdi radio show, I readily admit that I have not. However, your cited reference merely points to the show, and not to this transcript, which fails our verifiability policy. Now, if you were to be able to prove that a) the radio show meets our criteria for reliability, and b) that the information is relevant and intrinsically important to the article, we might have something to work with. Unfortunately, I don't think it meets either of these criteria. Not being able to find it, we might never know. Could you provide a link to the actual transcript for us all to see here in Talk?

As for the rate of drug receptivity reference, i am glad that you aren't including it. As most readers do not have a "knowledge of pharmacokinetics (without any research)", we shouldn't assume that they do, or that you have the suitable, citable personal certifications to mete out the aforementioned statements. Respectfully, unless you can provide a citation that says this, in speaking explicitly about the film, we cannot use it.

Please refrain from reincorporating the information in the article, as information that is challenged must be resolved before it can be re-added to the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Arcayne is wrong on all counts regarding the reference I provided. There is not such requirement that I refrain from re-adding material that has been removed with insufficient reason, as in this case. I suggest that he simply read the transcript or listen to it. The Marshalls Service representatives interviewed on the show were authoritative to make the comments they made. I will now provide a web link, if he is unwilling to find it himself. If he now deletes this material, is is just vandalism.

It is not necessary for all readers to have sufficient knowledge of an article for it to make statements that are well-known to all those knowedgeable in the field. For example most of the mathematics aritcles in Wikipedia make arguments that I do not understand, but I do not therefore delete the equations. --Zeamays (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And regarding your last point comparing film articles to math articles: you are discussing apples and oranges. The information in math articles is usually well-cited, from those speaking in terms of the mathematical principle involved. In film articles, the sole subject is the film. Every commentary, trivial bit, etc. in the article has to be cited in relation to the film. Otherwise, it is you making the connection, and I've already pointed out that you don't get to do that. Ever. For example, in the film Star Trek, people teleport all over the place. If someone writes a review of the film where they say that the transporter technology is impossible due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, then we can add that. Your personal knowledge of physics and the aforementioned principle is not license to note the impossibility. Your observations are not of notable use to the Wiki. I hope that clarifies matters for you.

First of all, slow down there, cowboy (or cowgurl); no need to forego AGF just because you were reverted. I appreciate you finally adding a specific reference to the specific podcast url; we tend to frown on info being added, presuming that someone will will do the heavy lifting for you. The info was removed because it wasn't cited, plain and simple. And when you are reverted, you are supposed to follow the relatively simple process of WP:BRD; and head to the discussion page to sort things out. You do not post in talk and assume your answer is going to be hunky-dory; that is in effect stupid. Failing to follow BRD is likely the number one cause of edit-wars and intellectual beat-downs. Caling edits vandalism is a further step down that path. When you assume a little good faith, it tends to go a long way.

Now, I've copy-edited the text to more properly reflect the citation, FYI, you might want to restructure your found reference using the Template:Cite_podcast template, and maybe note when the actual reference appears, as the podcast is pretty much like listening to paint dry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne: Please refrain from this inappropriate and insulting language. Your comments have no place in Wikipedia discussions. My citation to the statement by a representative of the Marshalls Service was proper in every way. Your objections were simply wrong, and I have consistently pointed them out, but you failed to read or listen to the reference or you would not have made the statements you did. Your language and actions have been noted. You may want to reflect on how you express yourself before your next posting. --Zeamays (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, could you be troubled to indent your posts, as per WP:TALK? It tends to preserve a conversational thread a lot better than starting out each post with a new indent. Thanks in advance.

Secondly, i am sorry you saw my response to your unfriendly post insulting. I would suggest that you read it again, and glean the actual intent, which was to point out that suggesting your fellow editor's reasoned edits are vandalism is always going to be taken negatively. I'd suggest you grow a thicker hide. I was pointing out simple wiki policy and guidelines, and the likely result from various editors when you choose to ignore that. Now, you can take it as advice, or you can ignore it. If the former, you and I are going to get along famously. If not, then I imagine you are going to end up frustrated. A lot, as I am no different from many other experienced editors who are going to insist that you provide proper citation.

Now, again: you claimed that your previous reverts added in "substantive", "referenced" statements. As indicated by your earlier edits/reverts to this article (1, 2, 3), that was not the case. It wasn't until you were pressed for an actual citation that you provided one ([1]). So, good job on that. Therefore, your subsequent attack-y claims that I "failed to read or listen to the transcript" are provably inaccurate.

If you are somewhat unclear as to how to cite things like podcasts, please ask. Being snappish in an edit summary isn't the same thing as asking for help. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne: I didn't change the substance of the reference at all, it was the same broadcast that had been referenced the entire time, so you are wrong that I "provided one". When someone doesn't like one of my constructive additions and edits it to better make a point, or substitutes a better reference, I don't object at all. I do object when a referenced addition that is relevant to the topic is deleted. And no, the subject of continuity and factual errors IS germaine to an article about a motion picture. It is well-known that many people take what they see in movies as factual (as was commented on by Kojo in the broadcast I cited). Your explanations for the deletion were wrong, as you would have discovered had you read the transcript. Many references in Wikipedia are not available on-line and not being on-line is not justification for rejection of a reference. It so happened that this reference is available in a recorded format, a circumstance of which I was unaware when I first made the citation. If it hadn't been, that would not have made the citation less valid; however, you probably still wouldn't have allowed it, given what you wrote earlier.

Further, you must recognize that when basic, well-known fundamental scientific knowledge is involved it can be impossible to find an authoritative reference that explicitly states that something specific is impossible, as is true in this case, but anyone can easily infer it who knows the basic science. I do not consider that to be research. If a math article states "The area of a Circle = π•r²," it is not research to state without research, "The area of a circle of 1 cm radius is not 1 cm²".

Again, please reflect on your choice of language (e.g. "stupid", "slow down there, cowboy (or cowgurl)", "presuming that someone will will do the heavy lifting for you", "the podcast is pretty much like listening to paint dry", "I am no different from many other experienced editors") which can be read as bullying, attempts to claim superiority, or put-downs. You appear to have a good command of some Wikipedia rules and policies, but I do not find some of your arguments from those rules convincing, and you mix serious issues with less important ones (e.g. how much to indent), which again can be taken as an attempt to take a superior position. I have, in fact, had recourse of some Wikipedia dispute resolution techniques, but it is preferable to solve things without them where possible.

Finally, Wikipedia frowns on trivia sections, so I am going to edit the section to provide a more acceptable description. --Zeamays (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you are stiull arguing with me, Zeamays. I've already shown via diffs that the citation you kept reverting back in didn't have an actual link to a podcast - and not a transcript as you had originally claimed, btw - until it was specifically asked for. It has been corrected (or will be, once you format the podcast to the template I thoughtfully provided for you), which concludes our issue. Such was the total of my comment. Well, that, and your inappropriate classification of any further edits by myself as vandalism. I'm willing to just chalk it up to you being a bit tired or OWNy at the time, and let it go. You will note I didn't call you stupid, or denigrate you by calling you cowboy (or cowgirl, depending on your gender) to suggest you were the issuance of an actual cow; I am going to presume that English isn't your primary language, as the phrase is American English idiom. It means someone who charges ahead when a bit slower pace is called for. Lastly, when I state my distaste at you adding a link that isn't a link by stating that you should expect other to do your cite work (ie, heavy lifting), its because it was lazy cite work on your part. You were being reverted, and you weren't listening to the reason for that citation. Eventually, you did, and that is a Good Thing. And trust me, you aren't being bullied. Chastised, yes. Bullied? No. Take your lumps, learn the lesson and move on. Don't create drama where there isn't a need for it.

And again, academic expertise on the part of an editor carries zero weight in Wikipedia. You don't have to believe me on this; ask around. We work solely off of citation, and not our primary observations. You are not citable, and therefore cannot add your knowledge or expertise to articles. That some articles require less (like maths, science or linguistic process, etc.) than others is a given. Films are open to interpretation, whereas most mathematical principles are not. How different drugs work is outside basic assumptions, and, as it is not covered by any linked film reviews, we cannot adjudicate the efficacy of the tranquilizer. If you disagree with this, there is always the Original Research noticeboard that you can forum-shop this matter to; they might have a different interpretation than I do. Just provide the link if you choose to do so, so I can follow that conversational thread there.

Lastly, your argument about people taking movies as fact is ludicrous, and ever more so when you cite a little-known radio talk show host's comments that are themselves not subject to editorial oversight (part of our reliability criteria, btw). To even think such is either pessimistic or simply simplistic. Movies are entertainment, documentaries are opinion pieces, and history is history. Period. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne: We differ on a number of issues, which is fine. I just don't care for your high-handed approach.

Although you are correct that expertise does not carry weight in vouching the validity of what is written in Wikipedia, neither does one need to check one's brain and expertise at the door. If something is a simple, straightforward deduction from a fact that has been established through references on Wikipedia, it is not research or unverifiable to state that deduction. Deductions like that appear in Wikipedia all the time. They do not require any special expertise. If a source says a = b, it is OK to write in Wikipedia b = a. That's all I'm saying. In the case of the behavior of dart guns, I have now provided a reference that clearly establishes (via the published quote of an expert, a Chief of Police), what I maintained could be deduced. Simply put, it is true. If you think otherwise, maybe since I now have the reference, you can produce a counter-reference?

You wrote,

Movies are entertainment, documentaries are opinion pieces, and history is history. Period."

This argument is disingenuous. Perhaps you wish it were so, but it isn't. If the public uniformly took fictional motion pictures (and other media) solely as entertainment, why is it that those which take controversial positions take so much criticism? For a clear-cut case, think about "Birth of a Nation", but the same can be said for many fictional productions. I might add that documentaries are a mixture of facts and opinion and that history is also largely opinion, except for highly factual materials, like chronicles, lists of persons and events, and census data. The fact is that many viewers don't have the background to know what is fact and what is fiction, so it is helpful for reference materials like Wikipedia to clarify the facts. Hence the items that I have added belong in this article. --Zeamays (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(←dent) Please take a moment and read the very first line of one our core policies, Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Therefore, it isn't what's true which decides what is to be included, but that which can be supported by citation that closely follows our policy. You cited a police chief talking about the efficacy of tranquilizers. Splendid. Now, was he speaking about the efficacy of tranquilizers in this film? If so, everything is copacetic. If he was speaking solely upon the uses of nonlethal armaments, it is synthesis, an important part of our no original research policy.

I understand that you might take offense at my "high-handed approach", but before you reject this post as simply wrong, please take the time to actually ask around, or head to either of the talk pages of the policies I linked; they will prove my words to be true.

In answer to your question about why films generate so much controversy, the simple reason is that too many people try to take creative endeavor and use it as a harbinger of society or whatnot. Most things are value neutral; it depends on how thye are used which renders them positive or negative influences. Either way - and forgive me if this sounds elitist or whatever, I don't have time to engage in extensive debate with you. Please take the time to ask around with others; I think you are misapprehending some of our policies and principles. I mean you no ill, but I find your tone a little confrontational. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just OR that's an issue here, it's also notability. Unrealistic elements are extremely common in fictional movies (in fact, they're pretty much unavoidable). Unless a notable source has made a fuss about this particular issue in connection to this particular film, it simply isn't noteworthy enough to get a mention here. There are plenty of essays out there about how the square-cube law makes giant insects infeasible, but we don't bother with that in the article on Them!. The plot of Titanic (1997 film) can't be true because the passenger lists will confirm that no Jack Dawson and Rose Bukater were on the ship, but we don't bother telling readers that. And so on. This might be appropriate for the 'goofs' entry in IMDB, but not here. --GenericBob (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I find GenericBob's simple statement convincing. He made a lucid and valid argument without the high-handedness and nasty language found in Arcayne arguments. --Zeamays (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Whatever works. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Return to the Background Issue

I have returned to this issue because interest in the factual basis in films and literature is of growing consideration. Some people find the background of films irrelevant. I do not, because so many people flatly take motion pictures and historical novels as sources for history or science. There is actually a serious academic literature about this problem. For an example, see: [2]. Therefore, I consider it important that this basis be included. I suggest one look at other film articles to see how much background is given. For example, the fictional "letters of transit" in Casablanca (film), the reasons for filming Doctor Zhivago in Spain, the types of Spanish locomotives used in it etc. Or for example, the sections on Scientific Accuracy in Gravity (2013 film) and The Martian (film). --Zeamays (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The information is of no relevance to this film. It makes no difference that people find it interesting. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Your argument did not refute my examples, or the many more I could provide. Background is of great interest to readers, despite your personal opinion. I asked you not to revert until this had been discussed. Obviously you took things into your own hands. --Zeamays (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You're adding trivia. That there is something else with the same name is irrelevant to the subject at hand, unless you have demonstration that third-party and reliable sources have commentary on the subject. Everything else is regurgitating old arguments going back years above. Drop the stick and step away from the horse. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I recognize your position, but I was hoping that the argument had been won by those who want to include background information, because so many other articles on films do include this type of information. --Zeamays (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A novel by Arthur Train

The Spanish Prisoner is the name of a novel by Arthur Train. The book was written during World War 1, and i think it should be mentioned. RocketMaster (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added a reference, as requested, but the reference I found was to a short story published in 1910. Zeamays (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. The con game evolved from it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Here are some. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

bad external linkage

Looking for a consensus on whether it makes any sense to archive the web address where Sony Pictures used to describe the film. Even if such information is deemed to be worth preserving, it perhaps should be presented in plain text, as the hyperlink just leads to sony's top level, which advertises whatever sony is pushing at the moment -- unrelated to this article -- which usually is regarded as spam around these parts.

I am strongly inclined toward deleting that link altogether, but first here's your chance to object to, or encourage, said action. Bustter (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there another alternative to leaving it be or deletion? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If Sony archived such minisites to a public lcation, I suppose one could update the link. But, so far as I know, they do not. I'm removing it. Bustter (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)