Talk:The Yankee Doodle Mouse

Untitled

Do any of you mind if I put a trivia about Tom as a sunflower? Where I come from, it is forever shown on Cartoon Network, but it was originally removed in the 1990s. TobytheTramEngine 20:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still shown on Cartoon Network in USA. TobytheTramEngine 20:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a reason: It's not a blackface. It's just Tom with a sunflower appearance after the dynamite exploded. TobytheTramEngine 02:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Game created

Shouldn't there be a wiki entry about the game that was inspired by this episode, Tom & Jerry Cat-astrophe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.248.132 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.254.83.35, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I have sonething I wanted to point out. It seems as if the last edit, made by User:Badger Drink, was vandalism, giving a poor edit summary, especially since there was an original synopsis page proving that there was a lost scene to this film. Please revert his edit to the prior good version.

98.254.83.35 (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I also want to point out that his edit only supported personal opinions, violating verifiability. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done. While the user removed a rather large section, none of the information was sourced with reliable sources and contained mostly original research (please see WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and WP:OR). ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 05:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.254.83.35, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} This revision might actually have more support from the cited source. Also, it incldes less info than necessary.

Lost scene

When The Yankee Doodle Mouse was re-issued in 1951, the title card was also re-issued to show an Oscar, and there had been a sequence leading into what was the second war communique. The original title card and this scene are both currently "lost". This lost scene takes place after Jerry hits Tom repeatedly with a board while the flour-filled air obscures Tom's vision, and before we see Tom wearing a pot on his head as a helmet. In the original, when Jerry runs off, Tom follows and jams his head into Jerry's mouse hole. However, Jerry uses a wrench to pin him inside, then proceeds to wet stamps on Tom's tongue and paste them into a book. The scene then dissolves into a second war communique, which reads: "Enemy gets in a few good licks! Signed, Lt. Jerry Mouse."

The original plot synopsis has been tracked down and can be seen here in its entirety, showing that there is indeed a lost scene. [1] The page showcasing this scene can be seen here. [2]

98.254.83.35 (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Entire section removed by another user because it was poorly sourced. Please see our documentation on identifying reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this page is actually credible, since it contains an original plot synopsis uncovered at the Library of Congress, along with the page showcasing the actual scene. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.254.83.35, 26 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Sorry, but I just can't take "no" for an answer, especially since the info comes from a credibe source, and a script stored at the Library of Congress.

Lost scene

When The Yankee Doodle Mouse was re-issued in 1951, the title card was also re-issued to show an Oscar, and there had been a sequence leading into what was the second war communique. The original title card and this scene are both currently "lost". This lost scene takes place after Jerry hits Tom repeatedly with a board while the flour-filled air obscures Tom's vision, and before we see Tom wearing a pot on his head as a helmet. In the original, when Jerry runs off, Tom follows and jams his head into Jerry's mouse hole. However, Jerry uses a wrench to pin him inside, then proceeds to wet stamps on Tom's tongue and paste them into a book. The scene then dissolves into a second war communique, which reads: "Enemy gets in a few good licks! Signed, Lt. Jerry Mouse."

The original plot synopsis has been tracked down and can be seen here in its entirety, showing that there is indeed a lost scene. [3] The page showcasing this scene can be seen here. [4] P.S. Check for reissue dates of MGM cartoons. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The claims are still original research on your part based on an unreliable blog source - which does NOT lay out the specific claims you are trying to add. Please see our documentation on identifying reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Mike, but, if it were up to me, you have no say in this. Leave the response to an administrator instead, or someone that can ACTUALLY decide how reliable a blog may be as a source. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, 98.254.83.35, but I was perfectly within my rights to reject your request - had you actually read the template, you would have noticed this line: "The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user." No mention of admins there, nor do I need you to tell me what's reliable or not. Had you actually read WP:RS (which would lead you specifically to WP:BLOGS), you would know not to use a blog as a reference - especially when the specific claim as presented in your edit request is NOT specifically laid out at that blog. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

hmm what i see here. i think mike was right. a reguest had been made but reject. so mike is right about hes siad here. anyways if people want to read about the lost scene than they can read it on old pages of the page. i think that sorts the bother here. well i think it sould. --Inxroad (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.254.83.35, 4 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I'm sorry to bother again, but, even after the lost scene section was removed, there are still statements across this article and the provided plot synopsis telling the readers to look at the bottom of the page for the now-wrongly-deleted section with info on the lost scene. I would suggest that either you restore this section in the best proper form, or, more simply, delete these statements. P.S. If you people don't understand this request, I'm not helping you at all. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

have you not taken on board what mike siad. well i don,t know i not going go on about this. but what mike said is the text you are asking to have in the page is not ok to be there. so just let it be thanks. --Inxroad (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.—C45207 | Talk 01:18, 7 March 2011

Like I said, I'm not helping you out anymore. Figure it out for yourself. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

o well never mind. i do think theres really no need to act like that. but thats up to you.

one more thing the part telling the readers to look at the bottom of the page has been removed. so really the part about the lost scene is no longer a bother as far as i can see. the article no longer has anywere on it telling readers to look at the bottom of the page. so really i think this is sorted now and this case on the lost scene is closed. 109.153.220.195 (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the start of the blog text does say "Another Library of Congress synopsis...", so why don't we just go see if it is on the Library of Congress website somewhere? The scanned images of the old plot synopsis are good sources to me, but I could understand still going to the Library of Congress website to see if it is on there instead, to remove any possible chance of those synopsis pages on the blog being fakes. Regards, [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

don,t worry about it retro00064 the text is not on the page anymore. and this case is closed. but thanks for your edit here and trying to help. --Iniced (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

well soneomne had added the lost scene again to the article however i have removed it as talked about here its not ok and theres nothing that oks it to be on the page as far as i know. i be keeping a watch on this. --Iniced (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Lost Sequence

There was lost sequnce and I can confirm that there was no original research. There evidence in the film. (The film was published), the copyright info was published, back in 1943. All the blog owner did was to put the information online, with permission of Library of Congress I assume, to confirm that he didn't made up the plot description. http://books.google.is/books?id=2H6yOwAACAAJ&dq=Yankee+Doodle+Mouse&hl=is&ei=dZAZTurDIdGp8AOaq8Ee&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA Google have confirm that it was publish. DoctorHver (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's nothing but original research. Of the sources you quoted, the Google books link has one line, but no corroborating evidence. The BigCartoonDatabase is like the IMDB, fine for an external link, but as it's user-submitted data, it fails WP:RS - as do the links you added from goldenagecartoons.com (a forum), and the jpg from thadkomorowski's blog. The cartoonresearch.com MGM article doesn't even mention this cartoon. Now, as for the thadkomorowski image - it shows a script page which mentions the text you claim to be "lost", but scripts often differ from final versions - you have no reliable sources that this was the final script. You have no evidence that this was ever animated or inserted (and then removed) from the cartoon. The entire section is supposition, and without reliable sourcing, it WILL be removed from the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

well siad mike. what mike has said here is right. you can,t keep added that lost sequence info the article without sourcing. thats why the fisrt it you added ti doctorhver i removed it. i asked for you not to do it again. ans i see you keep trying to do so. and now its you got you blocked for 24 hours. alter 24 hours don,t re add it unless like mike said you have a good source for your edit. thanks --Iniced (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The lost sequence, yet again

I think since the original print of this cartoon has not yet shown up, I don't know if the up coming Tom and Jerry Golden Collection will have it, as Jerry Beck has confirmed that ten original prints of pre-1951 Tom and Jerry cartoons but he has not said if Yankee Doodle Mouse is one of these 10 lets hope to god that actually is the case, Jerry might be under strigt order with this, as they want have surprise for the fans of collector so has he said. In the mean time we have that valid copyright synopsis, the unfortunate thing is that its only appear blog site, none of us like, and its not cartoonbrew.com which is animation news site run by Jerry Beck. So only way to site an copyright info currently verison is currently the blog no one like. But we could eather site info as book or something similar, but that stil sound like its form that blog site. but the news is the libray of congress sent me the first page of the copyright info, which confirms the vality of the copyright synopsis. But unfortunelty they only sent me the first page. But in the mean time we should mention that something was removed rather than talk about what was removed. Go to this youtube vidoe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5upz3hWRzw of the cartoon around 2:40-2:44 you see the abrupt cut then that confirms what is said over at http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon_info/4969-Yankee_Doodle_Mouse.html but rest of the info there talks about the missing sequence pepole can then read BCDB if they want know more. But the main point is the "youtube" footage confirms this line line over at BCDB: ""There was a scene deleted from the reissue print of the cartoon. TV prints viewed today show the smokescreen gag abruptly ending with Jerry whacking Tom in the head"". Then its talk about what was missing. Since this entry use BCDB as external link, think its save to and quote those 2 lines link this info directly from there minus description of the missing sequence itself. I have no re-edited the article again but put the <!- ""round the"" -> to hid the text from public, but if you are probably awere of it by now but you can eather change that yourself or make me do it (if there is no ojection in about week is it that the rule?) or some admin do it, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.149.129 (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I have noticed the abrupt fade-out in the cartoon also when I have watched it. Some MGM cartoons were modified for reisuue. For example, The Shooting of Dan McGoo had some changes made to it for reissue as discussed on Jerry Beck's Cartoon Research website, at http://www.cartoonresearch.com/mgm.html, so there is most certianly the possibility that a scene was snipped out of The Yankee Doodle Mouse for reissue. I am not sure if the Big Cartoon DataBase would count as a reliable source, but one thing is for sure: the YouTube video would be a copyright violation, and thus inappropriate for mention in the article. The BCDB page on this cartoon has a link to watch the cartoon, which is probably also a copyright violation, and thus may also be inappropriate for the article. I would be curious about the original prints of the Tom and Jerry shorts that will be on the DVDs also; original prints of Tom and Jerry shorts from the 1940s are probably as rare as large gemstones. If an original (rare) print of The Yankee Doodle Mouse surfaces that contains the supposed missing scene, then that will likely be enough to make it worth mentioning in the article. Until then, we have to find a reliable source to back-up the supposed fact of a scene not being in tehn reissue prints for that fact to be mentioned in the article. Regards, {|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 05:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

its been made clear that the Lost scene info is not to be in the article. this is just a ongoing thing that needs to end. can i sak everyone to just let it be and stop trying to have in the article. this case needs to be droped for good i think and there not be any bother about it. --Iniced (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I reject the request that the discussion be closed. I'm the original editor who put in mention of the lost scene, and the reason I put it in is to shed some light on the fact that the copies of the MGM cartoons we have today are NOT the versions seen upon original release. There is a common misconception that we are seeing the same version of the films that audiences saw in, say, 1944; that simply is not the case.

In my opinion, to completely cut off any discussion on the topic is comparable to shutting down the gold mine when we are just five minutes away from striking it rich; it is unreasonable and even obstructionist to do so. Knowledge evolves every day, and things about these films will come to light tomorrow that we didn't know today. We'll never know what new information we can use if we, figuratively speaking, gag our mouths, tie our hands behind our backs and move on.

Furthermore, we cannot completely omit the fact that how faithful the reissues are to the originals is under question. Thus, at the very least, let us rewrite it so that it will be a possibility instead of a fact. While the sources may not be credible enough to back up what I wrote as fact, it is probably credible enough to say it's possible. I will be doing that some time after this comment.

In summary, I reject the call to close the discussion and insist that it continue; it's the only way we'll find new information. 96.232.4.121 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

you have your rights to say what you think however i am makeing a reject to your reject. this is a old thing now and the case is closed as far as i can see now as noone else seems to be talking about it any more. so sorry but as far as i see its case closed sorry. --Iniced (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

o yea if you want to know why i am saying the case is closed its to due the fact that the lost scene does not have any reliable sources to be on the aritcle. and this talk page has been talking about for some tume by editers. but to me its time it was ended as the lost scene as far as i can see won,t be going back in the article. so really all this just needs to end. thats why i am saying case closed i hope this helps people understand why i think its case closed. thanks --Iniced (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

well since my posts over a mouth ago here. noone else has said any more about the case here. so to me it looks like the case has closed alter all just like i asked it to be. i know it can be started again if someone wants to talk about it. but till such a time. i mark the case closed. --Iniced (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk has now reopened on the lost sequence, and will resume

This is the original editor again. Following my comment in 2011, several revolting developments took me away from this topic, so I was unable to follow up on this discussion. Rest assured though that the topic is anything but closed in my mind.

In my opinion, the fact that there is something in the Library of Congress concerning this (and it's not a "script", as someone suggested; this is the description of the film as written by the studio offices when the film's finished) is reason enough for this to be in the article, as well as the fact that it was cited by an animation historian who is known by other prominent people in the animation industry: surely if it wasn't credible, we would know about it by now.

However, I can see your point, Iniced, that this is an old topic: it's because it's been out of sight of most readers, and "out of sight, out of mind" comes into play. Thus, I will take you up on your offer of renewing the discussion and put the section back in - tonight - in order to do such; I and others of my opinion will argue my case here on the Talk page in what will probably be a huge blowback.

If revisions need to be made, fine; Wikipedia is about evolving knowledge and getting the best information from several viewpoints, right? I look forward to arguing my point of view soon. 71.183.133.206 (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

sorry but i fully sure this will not be opened again this is old and noone talks about it any more.

you just tryed to add the lost scene again to the cartoon page but it been removed again this is a old case. i fully sure as i said nothing will happen with this. so really is there any point about this?. and last you welcome to talk but don,t remove olter comments like my from the page.

and you are not the original editer from septmeber 2011 you not got the same ip from than.

--Iniced (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The lost sequence. new section marking that this case has been closed for good.

er yea i know a few mouths ago i said in words this case is closed. and since doing that noone has talked about it again. so i am now marking it closed with a section nameing it as closed.

this section is staying at the bottom of the page. i feel it sould be here. unless someday lots of people start talking again about the lost sequence.

--Iniced (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017

72.74.69.128 (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

on]]
Additional animation:
Jack Zander
Effects animation:
Al Grandmain (uncredited) |layout artist=Harvey Eisenberg |Assistant animation=Barney Posner (uncredited)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

References