Talk:Rabbit-Proof Fence/Archive 1

NPOV warning
Whoever wrote this, you might want to check the neutral point of view policy. The page as it now stands is an argument, not an encyclopedia article. Clearly, the historical accuracy of the film is disputed, so you should characterise the dispute and attribute claims to specific sources. --Robert Merkel 05:47 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The first paragraph's references, to, seem perhaps dubious to me. It's simply a webpage, with lots of unsourced claims... Could be anyone! If I were bolder, I'd to something, but I'm not quite sure what the appropriate action is here! Someone has gone to great effort to criticise the historicity of the film, backing up this criticism with a dubious reference. Advice appreciated. --ScottMorrison 06:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found a reference that counters the assertions in the Bolt article. My sympathy is definitely on the other side (i.e. the non-Bolt-side) but the problem is that if the defence is too strong, the argument becomes the article and this will detract from the information about the film.  Stellar 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think more research is needed to see if this was a beat-up by an opinionated commentator or a serious discussion about the film. (Even Molly's statement that it's not her story may not be about what Bolt thigns is wrong but a different issue altogether). We need to find more academic or peer-reviewed refs. In the meantime, I'd consider taking it out of the lead section and making it a separate heading deeper down the article so that until more research is done, it is not the most important thing users see when they come to the article. Sterry2607 01:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion would improve this article. The first paragraph could be expanded and everything in the second paragraph moved to it's own section.  The controversy is related to the film subject, and in a separate section there could be directed links and notes to both sides and all opinions.  Stellar 10:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiya. Just on the subject of NPOV. Too much space is dedicated to Bolt's arguments. Saying that something is a FACT in capitals does not make it so. And the claim that "the children were not being properly cared for by their mother" in the article: Bolt doesn't offer any evidence that the mother of the girls mistreated or neglected them. They were children taken from a loving mother without reference to a court, and the fact that Neville had some consideration for the welfare of the girls shouldn't detract from this. Perhaps a longer summary of the film's events is in order, with bolt's argument and olsen's rebuttal given a brief mention. My other suggestion is to add a link to an interview with or article about molly craig and her daughter, like the one on the stolen generations page.--144.131.34.202 02:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will move the "bolt" paragraphs to a new section further down the article. At the moment I am waiting for the library to find an article I want to use that included an interview with Doris Pilkington.  When I get this I can add more text to the main part of the article and move the existing paragraph.  Stellar 09:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a "differences from the book" should be posted since this is Bolt's chief gripe with the movie - That way you wont have to continually quote him, but will offer all the info so people can make up their own minds. An important one here is the distinction between "being stolen screaming from their mother" and the version portrayed in the book which is significant in its difference.70.180.211.21 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio discussion
Well, User:Eloquence has pointed out that this content (which was duplicated at Stolen Generation) is actually from an article by Des Moore and Peter Howson. Unless you are one of the those two people, or have permission from them to use that material under the GNU FDL, you're not entitled to copy and paste it here (you can quote from it, but that's not what was done). --Robert Merkel

From our anonymous friend:

The material was published in public domain with no copyright notice.

However, I will repost it a different form, with deference to the self-appointed censorial class.

This is a typical misconception. Material that is not published with a copyright notice is not in the public domain. It needs to be explicitly placed there, which this article has not been. --Eloquence 07:10 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Material can be re-posted and cited, as I did. You need to study Copyright law a little bit more closely.


 * No, it cannot. Fair use is largely limited to excerpts, and not applicable to entire Wikipedia articles anyway, since these have to be licensed under the GNU FDL -- see Copyrights again.--Eloquence 07:14 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The anonymous friend appears to be basing his opinion on 1976 copyright law in the United States, when it was necessary to publish material with an explicit copyright notice, the year published, and the notice "all rights reserved." This requirement was nixed when the U.S. signed on to the Berne Convention in the late 1980s, and in fact things are copyrighted now once "in a fixed medium," even without explicit copyright notice. Koyaanis Qatsi 07:24 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * ... actually, no, our friend is logging on from Australia, so that's doubtful. Nonetheless, Australia had similarly stricter laws before signing on to more recent international agreements giving copyright by default to anyone who creates something without explicitly disclaiming copyright.  Koyaanis Qatsi 07:31 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Under Australian copyright law, there is no requirement to explicitly claim copyright, simply to create the work. Nor has there ever been such a requirement. (That's defining "ever" as "since I first needed to ask the question", which was perhaps 25 years or so back. You were advised to include the words "Copyright &copy; Tannin, 1972" or something similar, but there was no actual requirement that you did so.)


 * Interesting. Ok, thanks for clarifying; I think I'll back out of this one now.  :-)  The non-Australian, Koyaanis Qatsi

First page rename discussion
If no-one objects, I'll move the article from Rabbit-Proof Fence (movie) -> Rabbit-Proof Fence, the latter is currently empty, and will be so for eternity unless the movie is there, because a fence that dispells rabbits is a common noun, so can never be written in all cap. --Menchi 13:57 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Better not, Menchi. You see, there is a fence, and it is called (among other things) the Rabbit Proof Fence. Yes, that's it's name, and (of course) that is where the name of the movie came from. The fence has several names because it runs through several states. It is (or at least it used to be) the longest man-made structure in the world. From memory, it's over 7,000 kilometres long. You can read all about it under the other name it goes by, the Dingo Fence ... Er .... Where did that entry go? I clearly remember working on it not so many months ago. (Am I getting infirm in the head? Must be.) Anyway, there is no doubt, the fence comes first, the movie named after the fence needs to stay at Rabbit-Proof Fence (movie). Tannin 14:39 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * So the Fence is real, as in, a big long structure, a miniature Great Wall, not, in this case, for domestic/farm purposes. Since the movie is about the girls travelling beside the Fence, the article should probably point that out it's not just a metaphor, I mean, it is, and a good one at that, but it's also real (featured-in-the-film real?). --Menchi 14:45 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Not exactly "minature" - it's quite a lot longer than the Great Wall of China. But thinner, of course, and not so tall. :) That's really bizarre! I clearly remember hunting it up on the web to get my facts straight and writing about it. I hit Google just now and there were several of the same pages I hit the first time when I edited the article. And now it's missing! I am losing my marbles! Tannin


 * Ahh - I found it. It's a paragraph in Dingo, about two-thirds of the way down. Phew! I was worried there for a moment! Tannin


 * A paragraph is better than a stub (one sentence). The Fence is long, and it's there (and still is!), so it deserves its article, with the reference in Dingo preferrably strunken to one-sentence or less to avoid mindless repetition.
 * Care to make the start of a great article, Tannin? --Menchi 14:54 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * Okay, this issue has been hashed out but not resolved, the redirect from "Rabbit-Proof Fence" to "Rabbit-Proof Fence (film)" needs to be taken down, I was just about to start an article on the structure... but alas, at the moment I can't.... 207.158.1.209 23:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

1,500 Miles?
How can the girls follow the fence for 1,500 miles when the fence itself is only 1,100 miles long? (see Rabbit-proof fence. Lisiate 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are three fences. They followed parts of two of them and went cross-country for other parts of their journey. I agree the statement is confusing and misleading. &mdash; Donama 02:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename/move (to join article on book and film)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No move. Note to the proposers of "Rabbit-Proof Fence" (undisambiguated): see Naming conventions (films): disambiguation based solely on capitalization is avoided: see Talk:Pulp Fiction (film) as the precedent. Duja 09:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, do you think it would be okay to move this article to the name of the book, "Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence" and leave the "Rabbit Proof Fence" title redirecting to the title of the book. This is the pattern adopted for Picnic at Hanging Rock. There is currently no article for the book although a few pages including this one link to the empty page Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence. To me they logically belong in the same article. &mdash; Donama 02:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate whether you support or oppose this and give your reason. &mdash; Donama 02:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * &mdash; Donama 02:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (reasoning above)

Oppose

 * Oppose I don't follow the Picnic analogy. This should be moved to Rabbit-Proof Fence and Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence should be kept open for the book. In Picnic the book and film have the same name, making the (film) clarifier necessary. ~ trialsanderrors 07:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see the logic of this. Why move something we have an article on, that is at the correct name (sans disambiguation term), to a title that is not correct for the film (and for which at present there would not be any content other than the film). older ≠ wiser 18:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose If they are both to be the same article, use the name of the more notable. If not, no problem. Septentrionalis 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose to conform to current standards. Changing title either to Rabbit-Proof Fence (name of a well-known man-made Australian structure) or Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence (name of sourcebook, not the subject of this article) would be a bad idea. Drjon 13:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The structure is at Rabbit-proof fence. ~ trialsanderrors 18:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose move - instead there should be a separate article on the book. (As there is with Picnic). -- Beardo 20:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Classification and Ratings
The Classification and Review Board did not have a decision for the classification claimed in the text, that I could find. Classification Website. The sentence is ungrammatical (see - "... for the fact that Bolt making Molly Craig ...") but I don't know how to fix it to because I could not find the source of the claim. Does anyone have information about how this film got the PG rating? Stellar 14:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot?????
Hey people shouldnt there be a plot??? even if you have a seperate page for the book (which should have a plot) there need to be a link to the book Page. Where is the link? i would do that but i dont know how to Lovingnews1989 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Misleading
The third paragraph in the "Public Reaction and Criticism" section ends with the sentence, "It is documented that Molly had a child who was taken away by the authorities." While this may be accurate, it is irrelent to the rest of the paragraph because this sentence is refering to a post-script blub that occurs at the end of the film. As it stands, this sentence implies that the film is about Molly's daughter, rather than Molly herself. Since there is no summary yet, there is nothing to refute this implication. 76.93.65.34 (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)