Talk:The Wild One/Archive 1

Gang name

For trivia buffs, the name of the gang Brando led was The Black Rebels. Trekphiler 18:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

your trivia would be wrong. the club that was portrayed by Brando was the "13 rebels" Lee Marvins club that was portrayed was the Boozefighters MC, His name in the film whas Chino, which was modeled after Wino, one of the founders of the Boozefighters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.89.102 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

California plates

The article states that the film was set in "Middle America", but I could have sworn I saw California license plates. 63.24.29.75 12:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Beatles

"It is notable that the Beatles got their name from the film..." Say what? I've never heard this, and if true it should go in the Beatles article, which has the passage "There are many theories as to the origin of the name and its unusual spelling; it is usually credited to Lennon, who said that the name was a combination word-play on the insects "beetles" (as a reference to Buddy Holly's band, the Crickets) and the word "beat". Cynthia Lennon suggests that Lennon came up with the name Beatles at a "brainstorming session over a beer-soaked table in the Renshaw Hall bar."[11] Lennon — who was well known for giving multiple versions of the same story — joked in a 1961 Mersey Beat magazine article that "It came in a vision — a man appeared on a flaming pie and said unto them, 'From this day on you are Beatles with an A'" Herostratus 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no way that The Beatles got their name from this film, as it was banned in the U K until 1968. They may well have seen it in Hamburg, but by this time they were already called The Beatles. I have removed it from the article. Vera, Chuck & Dave 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you rebelling against?

This article quotes the line as: "What are you rebelling against, Johnny?"

The line from the movie is: "Hey, Johnny, what are you rebelling against?"

Not a fatal error, but don't put quotation marks around paraphrases. If you're going to quote a written work, quote the exact words.

Marlon Brando's cult answer What do you got? is a bit complicated for me. Does he say that like "What is your problem (to ask me something like this)?", or "What do you got (to offer)?" for example? This answer has been cited and used in many other movies or TV shows, just WHAT does it mean??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.124.80 (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He says "Whaddaya got?" as in "What have you got [to rebel against]?" His point being he is a rebel without a cause, a rebel on a kind of pure, existential level; the specific thing he is rebelling against doesn't really matter. -DrSwiftus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.69.49 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He does reply "What have you got?", but in an accent which makes it sound like "Whaddaya got?", a dialectal pronunciation often rendered as "What do you got?", especially by people with little awareness of the sentence's actual construction (much as the same sentence might in the UK be rendered "What of you got?")

Nuttyskin (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Gay leatherman subculture

I feel a reference should be made to this film's reflection of, and influence on, American gay working-class subculture of the 1950s-1970s specifically. Initially this is of course just the reflex in gay subculture of a trend already present in mainstream male culture, but as the 50s progress into the 60s the percolated influence becomes very marked; culminating in the Leatherman subculture of the 1970s, and maintaining an influence in SM subculture up to the present. I'm especially thinking of the film's seminal influence in the work of Touko Laaksonen (Tom of Finland), who even uses Marlon Brando as a model reference. Nuttyskin (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This subculture's images seem instead linked to the Kenneth Anger's Scorpio Rising, the Pacino movie, Cruising(?) and the 70's disco group,The Village People 213.123.135.235 (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Village People? Hell, no... It was only in that era it became a mainstream cliche. See Tom of Finland. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Cast list

Where a cast member has a speaking role then that deserves listing. 213.123.135.235 (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. Show me a single film article on Wikipedia where every single cast member is listed? There is simply no precedent for doing this. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave as you left it with those with individual wiki listings included (although I'll do an Yvonne Doughty one soon as she has an important part in the film) remaining. 213.123.135.235 (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no original research but I'm happy to provide the reference from Tony Thomas's book The Films Of Marlon Brando (Citadel Press) 1992 which has the full cast list including many of the prominent B.R.M.C. members such as Gringo (Kieth Clarke) Red (Johnny Taragelo), Crazy (gene Peterson), Dinky (Darren Dublin) and Boxer (Jim Connell). Although not credited in the opening of the films, Thomas's cast list doesn't categorise them as uncredited. Hope this helps 213.123.135.235 (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas also cites prominent townspeople such as Bill Hannegan played by John Brown who leads a breakaway group of townspeople who don't follow Charlie Thomas's view of beating Brando's character up. Hannegan is also Thomas's business partner. One of Thomas's more vocal vigilantes is Simmonds played by Bruno VeSoto who seeks to justify Brando's beating. Hope this helps. 213.123.135.235 (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Brando Mural Chicago.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Brando Mural Chicago.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Brando Mural Chicago.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Red Dwarf parody sourcing

Any significant work, like The Wild One film, is going to be referenced in hundreds of other subsequent works. There's nothing encyclopedic in listing every single one, especially if you only cite primary sources. The episode itself, that is. The Red Dwarf parody, for example, needs third party reliable sources which assert in some way that the parody mattered. That it was in some tiny way notable, or influential. It doesn't have to meet all the writer for WP:Notability, but there has to be something. The mere fact that the parody happened is not enough. It isn't enough to cite five Red Dwarf fan sites or episode guides which exist wholly for the purpose of recounting every single episode indiscriminately. Instead you'd need to cite a TV critic who asserts that the Wild One episode was one of the more important Red Dwarf episodes. Or any kind of critic who says the Red Dwarf Brando parody influenced other media, or influenced people in the real world in some way.

If the dispute were due to someone saying, "There never was a Red Dwarf parody of The Wild One", then you could resolve it by citing episode synopses that say there was. We agree the parody exists. My question is, does anybody argue that this instance of Wild One popculture references is important? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with your removing the section in it's entirity. The way to do it is to put a "Citation Needed" tag on the section and give it a little time... not just go blanking it with no warning. If people started just removing stuff that was not sourced, half the encyclopedia would disappear overnight. Adding new material without cites is one thing... telling people adding new stuff it needs a cite is fine, but just blanking an entire section of existing material is another. Marteau (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the old uncited pop culture parodies was that they were attracting more unicted parodies. When people see something in a Wikipedia article, they think it's an invitation to add more of the same. And it's clear that there's a misunderstanding that in this case all you need is some source that verified that X TV show did in fact parody Y subject. What's missing is a good source saying the name check or call back was of any importance, but a {{Citation needed}} tag fails to convey that.

A better pop culture section would say that Brando's biker character has been the subject of parody or homage hundreds of times, and then cite a handful of important instances. The same could be said for any cultural icon. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly the Red Dwarf reference was properly cited by links to the BBC YouTube channel (where you can see the the actual footage) and the producers' own website for the programme. Secondly I shall follow your suggestion and add a section that says just that and include the Red Dwarf example as the first example. Thank you for the suggestion. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking you for the fifth time: do you have any soruces that say why this parody is significant? You seem bent on proving that this pardoy exists. Is it important? Why does it matter? Why does a reader of the article about The Wild One need to know about the use of one line from the film in this TV show? Why does this matter? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The reference is sourced, and as well sourced as most other similar posts on Wikipedia - and more than many (eg List of Doctor Who parodies ) and including the totally unsourced Black Rebels reference you apparently have no problem with. I have absolutely *no* interest in justifying myself to you. You are a user, not an admin. Neither I do appreciate the threats you have put on my Talk page. I don't respond well to bullies - especially ones sat behind keyboards. When you can tell me why I have to justify myself to you over and above what 90% of other Wikipedia users do I'll consider it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianm358 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OSE. One of the reasons I deleted the other unsourced entries was that it is being used by you to justify adding to it. There is lots of crap on Wikipedia not yet cleaned up. The fact that you're able to find some crap that I personally haven't yet gotten around to removing is not justification for you to add even more crap. All you're being asked to do here is provide any reason -- even the slimmest hint of a reason -- why this particular piece of crap should be kept. There are significant parodies and homages to this movie out there and here you are fighting to draw attention to a TV show that used two lines from the movie. Two lines. Why? What is the importance of that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, after your poor conduct and bullying posts on my talk page, I have no interest in justifying myself to you. You do not own Wikipedia. Nor is it for you to dictate what I and others believe is relevant. Coincidentally, the BBC has just run an article on people like you. Perhaps you'd like to read it? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28426674).Brianm358 (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There continues to be zero evidence that a TV show's use of two lines from this movie is significant or influential in any way. No critic or expert has commented that the Red Dwarf reference matters at all. It's a throwaway line used to get a couple laughs. It doesn't even accurately depict the way the lines were used in the film. The latest attempt to find a source to support this inclusion is from IMDB, a crowdsourced website that lets users fill in whatever details they like about the entries, such as mentions of the Wild One reference.

To better understand why pop culture references need meaningful citations showing they matter, see WP:IPCEXAMPLES:

When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
2. Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference?
3. Did any real-world event occur because of the cultural element covered by the reference?

It is not encyclopedic content if you can't find any evidence that this Wild One reference on Red Dwarf caused any ripples anywhere. It's just trivia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Although Dennis Bratland could have, in my opinion, been less inflammatory with his categorization of your edits as "vandalism", he is nonetheless correct in saying that trivial, non-important content does not belong in the encyclopedia. Consider WP:POPCULTURE where it says "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources." Note that it is significance, not just simply existance, that must be shown. Just because such trivial, non-important content exists elsewhere is no excuse for adding to the problem. Marteau (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason I thought it was vandalism was that my perception was that Brianm358 was using primary sources (video clips, indiscriminate episode guides) as if they were secondary sources showing significance, such as the claim that it must be significant if the BBC put the clip on their YouTube channel. It's disruptive (or vandalism) to use source misleadingly. In fact, Brianm358 is saying that evidence of significance is not required, in spite of the consensus in WP:POPCULTURE, or the consensus in WP:IPCEXAMPLES, or the consensus here. Other Wikipedians have debated this many times, and they've eventually always come down on the side of saying passing mention needs evidence of significance in secondary sources. Ignoring consensus can also become a form of disruptive editing, if it goes on long enough. I would recommend it's time to stop re-adding this entry and instead work on finding a secondary source who asserts it's significance. Until the, do something else more constructive.

We've seen in this very incident that if you keep insignificant pop culture mentions around, more editors will come along and use that to justify adding even more. You have to delete it or more of the same will be added. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Marteau. Thank you for your contribution. There is the question of what constitutes important or non-important / significant or not significant. I am assuming you are not familiar with the series? Or you would appreciate that this moment is crucial to the development of the Kryten character. This is recognised by the programme's current TV station (http://dave.uktv.co.uk/red-dwarf/red-dwarf-series-guide/red-dwarf-ii/article/about-red-dwarf-ii/). And thanks for the WP:POPCULTURE link which I have examined, although it is quite open to interpretation, particularly as it is user editable itself. I would point out that Wikipedia sources include very many printed books not available online. And if the hundreds of thousands of examples are acceptable then why not the 24 years, ten series and 61 episodes of the programme available on VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray rather than in print? Does that make it any less verifiable? How many people have gone out and checked that these literary references are verifiable? My inclusion of the YouTube clip in question is infinitely more verifiable to 99.99% of users as you can see the transition in character take place even in that short period of time. As you said before, "I'm going to have to disagree with your removing the section in it's entirity. The way to do it is to put a "Citation Needed" tag on the section and give it a little time... not just go blanking it with no warning. If people started just removing stuff that was not sourced, half the encyclopedia would disappear overnight. Adding new material without cites is one thing... telling people adding new stuff it needs a cite is fine, but just blanking an entire section of existing material is another." I am going to re-add the reference and lets hear from a few more people before taking such drastic action. Thanks again.Brianm358 (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I admit I have never seen or heard of Red Dwarf until now. That scene may be important to viewers of Red Dwarf, and that scene and the characters metamorphosis might be worth including in the Red Dwarf article. But are people who come to the Wild One article going to find that scene important? It is a borderline call, and reasonable editors could line up on opposite sides of the fence, and if one or more editors comes down on the "inclusion" side, I will be pleased because I lean towards inclusion... MOST of the time. For this, however, I'm going to have to remain on the "unimportant" side for the Wild One article. But your point is valid, and I can easily imagine that if for example a Seinfeld character (let's say, "Kramer") had suddenly become like Marlon Brando in the Wild One and changed drastically, with a truly good cite that scene would almost certainly be considered worthy of inclusion here, due to the sheer popularity of Seinfeld. But with Red Dwarf not being nearly as popular, it becomes more of a toss-up and not such a clear line for inclusion/exclusion. And, I admit, that is a liability for a British series, with Wikipedia leaning heavily towards a North American bias. Hopefully more than just three of us will weigh in on this issue so you are not left with me tilting the balance ;) Marteau (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Brianm358's previous comment confuses verifiability with primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Nobody is disputing that the BBC video of the show, or the synopsis of the episode, are verifiable. It does meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources -- if anybody were saying, "There was never a Wild One parody on Red Dwarf". But that's not the issue; we can verify, and we all agree, the parody happened.

The problem -- referred to in WP:POPCULTURE, WP:IPCEXAMPLES, and here in Marteau's comments -- is that the YouTube videos and episode guides are primary sources. We lack a secondary source. An indiscriminate episode guide is no help; an episode guide relates the content of every single episode, but doesn't offer independent evidence that any episode is important. All we need is one -- just one! -- independent, secondary source, which says that this thing was significant. Just one. All of the above assertions that Red Dwarf was such an important and popular show only underscore the question, "If this Wild One parody -- this appropriation of two lines -- was such a big deal, how come we can't find one, single, solitary independent source who says it was a big deal?"

I would say the same thing about the Seinfeld example -- yes the show was popular, but not every line uttered on the show was worth noting, or is encyclopedic. How do we know what's encyclopedic? Our sources tell us. We don't have to debate it ourselves; we defer to our secondary sources.

The harm of leaving this in with a {{cn}} tag has already been demonstrated by Brianm358. Brianm358 told us the reason this was added was because other articles have the same kind of thing. Like attracts like, even though it doesn't meet the consensus of the guidelines. That's why anyone who understand the guidelines and policy needs to delete it sooner and not later. Let it be and it gets worse. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I was, in this instance, addressing only the importance, or non-importance, of the event. Whether it gets in the encyclopedia or not requires a source, of course, but the importance of a thing existst independent of someone relable discussing it. As proof of that concept, we often know something is important and should be included in the encyclopedia, THEN look for sources. If the inherant importance of a thing was dependant on citation, that would be impossible. One could of course look at it the other way as you advocate and say that it is the citations which makes it important per se, but thinking that way does not come naturally to me ;) Marteau (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. So is Brianm358 arguing that the use of these two movie lines is significant, and therefore within the guidelines? If so, what's the basis? Or arguing that we should ignore the guidelines in WP:POPCULTURE? If so, what's the basis for saying the guidelines don't apply because this is a special case? If so, what makes it different from the rest of Wikipedia? We've had a third opinion saying the Red Dwarf reference should be removed. Do we need a fourth? -Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

Third opinion requested at Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. Awaiting response. Brianm358, feel free to clarify your position here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Dennis is right that WP:IPC requires a secondary source to establish notability in this kind of situation. If you would like to see this policy changed or a wider consensus, I suggest you should try WP:Requests for Comment (for further input) or take it to the WP:IPC talk page. Regards. MarshalN20 Talk 03:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A correction: WP:IPC is an essay, not policy, and "requires" nothing, ref: the advisory banner on the essay. That does not affect your contribution to the consensus here at all of course... just being precise. Marteau (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)