Talk:Birdman of Alcatraz (film)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bird man of alcatraz342.jpg
Image:Bird man of alcatraz342.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The way forward
This Burt Lancaster and John Frankenheimer outing was during a time when they made several films together. Some context about the film's production may be useful. It also won a heap of award as Frankenheimer was parachuted into the production at the last minute. According to the IMDB triva page for the film, Karl Malden (Leavenworth warden Harvey Shoemaker) introduces a new warden to the institution. He identifies one of the prisoners as "Sekulovich", Malden's own real name. Not a critical matter, but still amusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.178.143 (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The song title "Birdman Of Alkatrash" is correctly spelled with a "k" not a "c." The spelling of the song title differs from the spelling of the name of the island for reasons known only to the songwriters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.94.208 (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Original research
I'm removing the items in "Fact vs. fiction" about the characterization of Stroud in the book and the film as being "largely fiction," that "Warden Shoemaker is a combination of separate officials," and "Stroud's business partner and wife was actually called Della Mae Jones."


 * The Palin source does not directly or clearly state that the characterization is "fiction", not even close. It is an interpretation of the contributing editor based on fellow inmates stating the film is a "comedy." First, their comments do not refer to the book, and, second (and more important), there is not enough context in the source to know what they meant by the comment; certainly not enough to conclude the characterization is "fiction" (except that it is fiction, since it's not a documentary film and the whole "Fact vs. fiction" section should be merged into Production).


 * Nowhere in the source about the wardens is the film even mentioned, so stating that the warden character in the film is a "combination" of Morgan and Johnston is editorial synthesis and not allowed per Policy. "Shoemaker representing two separate people is fact" may be accurate, but it must also be verifiable to be included in the article: a credible, reliable source who explicitly states that the character is a "combination" is required.


 * By stating, "Stroud's business partner and wife was actually called Della Mae Jones," the editor is implying a contrast between events in the film and reality ("actually"). Unfortunately, the source does not explicitly state this contrast (or even indirectly reference it). As with the warden example above, a reliable source must make this contrast, not a Wikipedia editor; otherwise it is synthesis.

Reliable sources that explicitly make these connections must be found before these contrasts can be considered for inclusion in the article. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To quote a classic: "It's been quiet, too quiet". Welcome back. Now, your points:


 * 1. All right, the Palin interview can go from "Fact versus fiction", though I think that it shows an interesting insight into the film by men who actually lived in prisons and knew Stroud for what he was. A "Critical reactions" sections may be in order here.


 * 2. We could, if you like, take out the mention of Shoemaker being a composite for two separate men and just leave the names of the real wardens at those critical points of Stroud's history.


 * 3. None of the sources I checked mention him having any other wives so who else could Stella Johnson be?


 * 4. The film clearly depicts Stroud picking up and throwing out the guns before ensuring "Harvey" (i.e. Shoemaker, who should be Johnston) that the coast is clear. Yet by all accounts the prisoners were still armed when their dead bodies were found. Where is the possible harm in pointing out the facts, especially when the film-makers take such liberties? I'm well aware that historical films play with events and it would be absurd to expect them to describe word-per-word what was said and done. However I do not believe that that is good enough an excuse in order to show their subject playing a more important part in events than in fact he did and I think that it is important that people be made aware of what really happened.


 * 5. When you took out the Palin paragraph, you left behind: "In a separate interview, Williams stated that Stroud "was not a sweetheart"". While you were at it, you could have taken out the "In a separate interview" bit and put in his full name of "Glenn Williams". It just makes proper editing.


 * 6. I know what your argument is: that I am relying too much on sync especially when I cannot find anyone else who has taken the trouble to check the facts and contrast them with the fiction. That I have to find a source that agrees with me and is 200% reliable as opposed to just 100%. I've got a better idea: let's change the name of "Wikipedia" to "Wikicopy" that way editors can be restricted to simply say what others say and be discouraged from any attempts of taking initiatives or making observations backed up by hard evidence. Also they should copy-and-paste from other websites or type out word-per-word what is said in the source book - using your own words will be strictly forbidden. Of course, since people can go elsewhere to find the facts this will make the whole Wiki project redundant.--Marktreut (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You acknowledge here and many other places your disagreement and disregard for the Wikipedia Pillar about Original Research. Please don't continue to misrepresent your edits here by claiming "sarcasm" (or else I'll be glad to link this page to all those places for all to see). The material is clearly synthesis. It is gone. Please offer a new rationale for retaining it. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They're facts. What more rationale do you need? Shall we start a campaign to change the name to "Wikicopy" or "Wikiplagiarism"? Or why don't we call for the complete abolition of Wikipedia altogether? Surely that's the best way of settling the matter.--Marktreut (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Verifiability would be nice. The good parts of Wikipedia seem to struggle along nicely with that policy. Give it a shot.
 * Jimmy Wales: "insist on sources"


 * 173.72.136.143 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I said offer something new (and on-topic). You cannot "compare the plot summary to these sections": it is synthesis and you know it. It's interesting that you continue to offer the same old, ineffective argument (about how "boring" it is to adhere to Verifiability, No Original Research, and Reliable Sources) over and over in edit summaries (when you bother to use them) and on article and user talk pages, but you never, ever take your position to the proper forums, Policy and Guideline Talk pages. I wonder why that is. If you disagree with the Policy, then work to constructively change it rather than being tendentious. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As you should know by now arguing is not my forte, which is one reason why I never studied law, but I do happen to believe that it is important for people to know the facts from the fiction especially when it comes to movies supposedly based on real events. You keep accusing me of sync and OR but you are preventing people from knowing the truth. These facts are verifiable: what name does the movie give to the warden who oversaw the Battle of Alcatraz? Shoemaker. What was his real name? Johnston. How do we know? We can watch the film and read a book called "Escape from Alcatraz" by J. Campbell Bruce and that is just one of several. That we need a 200% reliable third-party who explicitly states something like "Johnston's name was changed to Shoemaker" is quite frankly pushing things a little too far. It makes wiki editors appear to be a bunch of morons who cannot come to conclusions based on hard evidence, or else imbeciles who cannot verify the evidence presented. You yourself have acknowledged that what I have written is the truth. Why don't you go after someone who has actually put in false information, like claiming that Frank Sinatra was dubbed by Sammy Davis, Jr. in much the same way as Kathy dubs Lina in Singin' in the Rain?--Marktreut (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please cite Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines when proposing and forwarding a line of argument instead of characterizing Verifiability, Reliable sources, and Synthesis policies as "Wikicopy"ing and "Wikiplagiarism." Your disagreement is with the policies, so take your "discussions" and ridicule to those policies' Talk pages and leave Article pages alone until you gain Consensus there. From this point on I will no longer be feeding the trolls. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Marktruet's Edit Summary of "here we go again" is hardly constructive and appears to indicate either an unwillingness to provide or an inability to articulate an explanation as to how his contributions are not synthesis. So how are they also not tendentious editing? 173.72.136.143 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * These are facts which people are entitled to know. Historical movies like this tend to mix fact and fiction and it is only fair to know where they diverge. Furthermore I am trying to make constructive contributions, whereas others are trying to undo everything, deny people knowledge and fail to offer any kind of helpful alternatives. Who are the vandals?--Marktreut (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No Original Research and no Synthesis. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So, in conclusion: Shoemaker was warden of Leavenworth and Alcatraz; Stroud was married to Stella Johnson (I wonder what happened to Della Mae Jones); he ended the Battle of Alcatraz by throwing the guns out of the building (most reports claim that the dead convicts were still armed - I wonder where they got that from); and Shoemaker was warden of Alcatraz at the time (I suppose that James A. Johnston was just a bit player on the side). Funny how movies show more reality than official or historical publications.--Marktreut (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not original research
I've tried to remove the sync-like feel of the Historical Points. People can thus read the Plot summary and compare it to the real events and I have included references to good sources in order to make my case. I think that it is important for people to know where fiction and reality diverge. As for "Red Dwarf", if you watch the episodes in question you will see what I mean: series "Red Dwarf VIII", episodes "Pete: Part 1" and "Pete: Part 2". I've added a link to the official site to confirm that the character was based on Stroud.--Marktreut (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There are other articles on similar fact-based films which question their historical accuracy. Why should this one be the exception?--Marktreut (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First, see WP:MOSFILM which specifically addresses tihs, second, you have already been told, repeatedly, that you are adding original research. Multiple editors have rejected this. You already know continuing to readd it is wrong. If you readd again, it will end up back at ANI. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, for the last time, read the Guidelines. They are written clearly so there is no question about how the edits you repeatedly add seemingly everywhere violate WP's Rule ("Rule", not "Guideline") against Synthesis&mdash;


 * Wikipedia's "No original research" policy says about synthesizing, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Readers and editors should take for granted that there are many ways films conform to, and deviate from, history or science. Analysis should be introduced by reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science. Avoid listing miscellaneous information about accuracies or inaccuracies whose relevance are not backed by secondary sources; they are typically trivial to the topic. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license.


 * You know this. So, instead of repeatedly violating the rule at numerous articles because you disagree with it, do the right thing and discuss it at the appropriate Talk page (Films' Guidelines). If you're frustrated about the lack of requisite "secondary sources" which support your observations, then try writing articles about the connections at places that cater to original research. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Birdman of Alcatraz (film). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427230802/http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/stroud/ to http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/stroud/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)