Talk:The Fugitive (1993 film)/Archive 2

Content
There seems to be a disconnect between the information currently displayed on the article page, and for a number of edits which I inserted to improve the quality of the content. As of now in it's current form, the article is very poorly written, and contains few citations which are reputable or reliably sourced. The "owners" of the article are intent on keeping it that way. I made a number of improvements in a single edit to speed up the contribution process, but I did not have the capability to properly summarize and explain each and every individual edit. One of the contributors to the article reverted my improvements, and then took it upon himself to slowly revise the content using my corrections. How thoughtful. (Although it sounds pretty ridiculous.) Therefore, I will improve this article a little at a time with edit summaries so as to try and not conflict with the other editors. I am not doing anything wrong by helping to improve the content of this article. If any of the "owners" of the article wish to engage in a meaningful conversation, they are welcome to do so. Moovi (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are no "owners" to the article. There is a group of editors who are all active in editing. When there is a disagreement about content—for instance, when multiple editors revert changes you make to the article—it's a sign that you all need to discuss the changes to determine what the consensus is of the parties involved.


 * Speaking for myself, I think that it is not unreasonable to attempt a number of small, well-explained edits. Go a few at a time, and if editors object, hit the brakes on editing and discuss the changes first. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Points for improvement
As per talk and the recent editing conflict, I'm outlining several problem areas of the article which are in need of attention:

1) The references section does not contain any further reading sources to complement the user's knowledge of the subject matter. A number of novels expand on the ideas of the nature of the film and it's production merits.

2) The Sequel section could use some minor copy-editing with minor deletions associated with minute details that are not particularly important or relevant. Also, it contains no sourcing, which should be applied.

3) The novelization section can be expanded along with an insertion of proper sourcing.

4) The production section is not properly sourced. It's current sourcing originates from user-edited fan based websites, along with a dead link. A copy edit is also needed for grammar.

5) There's no home media or box information detailing it's performance during its release schedule.

6) The introduction contains sparse info, and could be greatly expanded beyond two small paragraphs.

7) The awards section contains only one citation from one awards ceremony. The film was nominated and won numerous awards from a number of different organizations. The section could be greatly expanded.

8) The reception section contains one review, and could be greatly expanded to offer both differing viewpoints, highlighting both positive and negative opinions.

9) The film can be inserted into a number of categories which are not currently present, such as Police detective films and Films shot in Tennessee.

10) The soundtrack section could be formatted a little differently for easier readability. The subject matter could be expanded for further details regarding it's limited edition release.

11) Some of the Cast list contains minor characters which are not particulary important to the central story.

12) Plot summary is filled with grammatical and punctuation errors. It also contains too many details. It should be as concise as possible.

Moovi (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been away for a week, so I missed all of these posts on talk. I will review your suggestions and make a response later. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm listening to what you have to say, although I'm not entirely sure why. The original issue we faced was making a noticeable improvement to the article in one shot, without giving an edit summary (ie. being bold). It was suggested that I make a number of positive changes to the article gradually over time, little by little and supplementally adding proper edit summaries to complement them. So that's what I've been doing. There haven't been any objections to the article improvement. If there were disagreements in approaching the article for positive enhancements, then it would be discussed with a "consensus". You and your particular opinion is not a consensus. This has turned into something such as Me Vs. You, or Any freely entitled Wikepedia editor Vs. You. Now if I make edits in a regular fashion like other editors do, (ie. making a number of small edits one by one with proper summaries), I don't need your particular approval or oversight to do so. As long as an editor doesn't insert questionable material into the article, such as unsourced content, vandalism, or improper grammar and punctuation, you don't have the right to delete someone's improvement to an article and then make up your mind whether you think it belongs there. If I make a positive contibution to the article and provide an adequate edit summary, you don't have the right to delete it and say, I need to review it before it gets inserted into the article. Your opinion in particular, is not a good enough reason to delete other users contributions. Keep in mind, this is occuring after the BOLD editing was resolved on my part. If I make an edit thats properly sourced but which some users might question its relevance towards the subject matter, and then lets say 10 or 15 editors also object to the content's insertion voicing their viewpoints on the talk page, then thats a good enough reason to delete it from the page. So I'd like to continue restoring the page back to a much improved properly sourced stance. Now, with one of your reverts, I don't agree with it, and there hasn't been a "consensus" against it. Its only been "You" against it, which again is not a good enough reason to delete the improvement. The edit concerns the Further reading subsection. Your explanation of "These books are not relevant" is incorrect. Every one of those novels contains a reference discussing the film in a historical or cultural aspect. If a user wants to read a novel expanding on those ideas, they would find it useful and complimentary in viewing those titles. So I'm entitled to insert that back into the article along with all the other improvements to the article as long as a whole number of editors don't disagree. I don't need your permission or approval to do so. It's not just about you in particular disagreeing. There hasn't been a consensus against me. I'm patiently waiting to restore the positive content that was deleted, even though I don't have to. The bold editing issue was resolved. Moovi (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As per comment request at the Film project. Moovi, your edits for the most part seem to improve the article, but the reason TOJ seems to have reverted you is because you are introducing too many changes in wholesale edits. While he may agree with some of your edits, he may not agree with all of them. Part of the deal with Wikipedia is that your editing is subject to peer review. Collaborative editing needs to be incremental, so other editors can examine each new piece of information on its own terms. This article definitely needs work so it's great that you are willing to do it and I don't want to discourage that, but maybe if you would prefer to just do a full re-write perhaps you could do it in your sandbox and then invite TOJ to peer review it? Many editors who prefer to overhaul articles use this approach. Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, to the best of my knowledge, that's really what I've been doing so far for the previous week and a half. And that would be making incremental edits. There has been plenty of time to review it as we go along. Nothing has been rushed. I'm moving at a slow pace giving all editors essential time to review the changes. All readers have been absorbing the info piece by piece instead of my previous mistake of speeding up the process into one shot. But let's also keep in mind a very important point. It's not as if there was alot of content on this page to begin with, and it's quickly being replaced. Alot of the information initially contained in this article consisted of improper grammar, original research, and a lack of a basic article structure for a film project. I tried to take the most balanced approach by gradually inserting the improved material over time. That differs from taking a completely different approach of deleting 2/3 of the article. I wouldn't need any special permission or privilege to blank out entire sections that contain absolutely no reliable sourcing and or original research. I'm also freely entitled to blank out entire sections at a time in speedy succession if it doesn't contain any sourcing, or in this case original research from fan based websites.  But I didn't do that to make the page devoid of content.  I'm slowly improving the page giving necessary time for readers to absorb the improvements and reliably sourced material. I look forward to continuing to work on this project to help the readability for other users. Moovi (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A few comments. I restored your improvement of the awards section, so that can be crossed off the list.  You added non-starring roles to the infobox, which you need to stop doing.  The long list of books, many of which are only vaguely related to this film is not helpful, and you have given no good reason for why it is needed.  If they are useful as sources, use them as such, but simply as a list, it just takes up space.  There is no reason to add the actor's full name to the plot, as that is repetition, and there is no need to dramatically expand the plot, either.  This film's plot is not terribly complicated, so the summary should be kept brief and simple.  Betty offers good advice above, and you would do well to listen to her. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  15:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with most of what your saying. First, with the infobox, I don't know what your talking about. The infobox should include all the starring actors that appear on the film poster. In the revised form that I inserted, it does. So you are incorrect on that point. As far as the books are concerned, I explained that adding a further reading subsection is helpful for people wanting to read about the film in cultural or historical aspects. Thats a reason to include it. Your entitled to your opinion, but thats not an adequate reason to delete that info. As far as the plot is concerned, I'm not expanding it, I'm trying to reduce the unecessary details. It contains references like "Gerard fires several shots at Kimble which are stopped by bulletproof glass." - that particular detail makes the plot too long, and it's not necessary. Or "Kimble is taken into custody, since he is still technically a fugitive, despite his innocence. Once inside the car, Gerard unlocks his handcuffs" - again, thats an unecessary detail. What your saying is completely flawed and innacurate. This article shouldn't be based on your opinion. Moovi (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Betty has it right, Moovi. I know that you waited for TOJ to respond but with the holidays it took awhile, but you still didn't wait for consensus to make bulk changes.  Clearly from the above, there are good changes you are doing, and there are bad ones (even if you disagree).  I'd still wait until what are appropriate changes are clearly decided but don't do the changes en masse; for example, just do the infobox in one change (not giving an opinion here which way is right or not), and the plot fixing up in another, and so on.  This way, TOJ or anyone else can selectively back out the edits they think are bad.  To that end, I do expect that if they do that, that they explain on the talk page the issues so that a consensus solution can be worked out.  But at the same time, if those edits are revent, Moovi, don't editwar to fight to get them back in; use the talk page to resolve it. --M ASEM  (t) 16:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought I was following those instructions to begin with awhile back. So your saying now, I should restart the process all over again, one by one? I'm not sure I understand the logic of doing that again if I already did it earlier. And what T.O.J. is saying with his last edit on the article page refererring to my edits containing -  no explanation is clearly incorrect. I did provide adequate summaries with each edit. I can restart the process all over again, but it doesn't seem necessary. I outlined many of the flaws here on the talk page, and I also included edit summaries with my edits. The bottom line is this, if T.O.J. disagrees with an edit, that's his opinion. But since his opinion doesn't comprise a wide consensus, my edits don't have to be reverted if I've been following the editing rules. So is it really necessary for me to restart this whole procedure again? Moovi (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the last time, you didn't wait to get a nod for any of the points you made, so you shouldn't have mass changed the article to start - on the other hand, if you had done each change, one per edit (so, say, like 14 edits) the TOJ or anyone else could have selectively undone the changes they didn't agree with, and brought them here for discussion.
 * Given that we're at this point, I think you need to not make any more changes at all (short of fixing vandalism) until TOJ or anyone else at least acknowledges the change being appropriate; those they don't agree with, you need to discuss before changing.
 * And as a word of caution, in other articles, yes, being BOLD and making changes like this is fine, but as you hopefully see here, doing small incremental changes will be much less of a problem than one massive sweep. You still will need to discuss any change that is reverted, but at least you're starting off on a better foot than one that implies "my way or the highway". --M ASEM  (t) 16:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We will continue with this discussion until it gets resolved. I'll be patient. However, there are few things that haven't been addressed. Every time I bring up a specific bunch of issues, I just get the run-around. I acknowledge everything your saying and I'd like to point out some problems here. I'm open to a discussion if say for instance T.O.J. disagrees with some of my changes. It would appear so far, I agree with him on two points. He doesn't want to put the entire actor's name in the plot summary, as he sees it as repetitious info. No problem, I can agree to that. He also agrees with the awards section. Thats a good thing too. But when T.O.J. tells me something that simply is untrue and incorrect, like alluding to the plot field being in adequate shape, it's completely stupid that it should be the status quo. The plot field is clearly laced with grammatical and punctuation errors, and contains too many irrelevant details as mentioned above. So if he tells me it's not, I still don't have to listen to him. I can't have a constructive conversation when someone clearly doesn't understand what their saying. But thats brings up a bigger issue as to why everything revolves around his opinion. Why doesn't it revolve around my opinion, or your opinion, or even Betty Logan's opinion? ... A consensus is not formed around his opinion. He has an opinion, and he's entitled to his opinion, but his opinion should not be the basis for the direction of the article. So in a nutshell, if I want to make a constructive and helpful edit, and then he says no, I have to listen to him? Who made him in charge? This is not a balanced approach for anyone to edit this article, if he disagrees. But again, thats missing the point. I shouldn't have to wait for his approval, as if he owns the article. I've been doing the correct thing since the previous mass edit. I inserted small changes with complimentary edit summaries. No editor should require his permission to edit. If I had taken this approach to start with, he would still delete all my additions, and give the same lame excuse saying, there's not a proper edit summary for each change, even though I inserted a proper summary. We're not getting anywhere here. I'm still waiting to find out what his objections to all the small improvements are, from the past 11-12 days. Moovi (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Moovi, you clearly misunderstood what I said above. I never said that the plot summary was fine as it was and should not be changed.  I merely stated that we should avoid an expansion, which is what I believed you were suggesting.  That was a misunderstanding on my part.
 * And, to be clear, nothing "revolves" around my opinion. I have been editing film articles for a long time, as other editors can tell you, and have a sense for what can go wrong with them.  I firmly believe you are well-intended here, and not a single-purpose editor fixated on the article about his favorite film.  I have tangled with such people before, and it's no fun.  Most of what you have outlined at the top of this section seems right on, let's just proceed slowly. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  19:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I await your response to begin re-inserting the improvements. Moovi (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I made a number of revisions over the past week and a half giving proper explanations and edit summaries, and they were reverted. There hasn't been any plausible feedback from the editors who keep on reverting the page back to a poorly written state even though I've done my part. I restored a number of my revisions and will give a detailed explanation here regarding that. The Old Jacobite and Gareth Griffith-Jones; I'm here to discuss and compromise with you on a number of related edits. Please read what I have to say below, carefully.


 * First, with the infobox, your assertion that the cast of characters should include only Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones is incorrect. Please have a look at the sub-section of Template:Infobox film. In the category of "Parameters", it clearly states the following: Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Now, on the film poster, it shows all the characters that I inserted in the list. Offhand, it might be difficult to see that on the poster image because its of low resolution. However, if you view a high resolution image of the poster from say, MoviePosters.com, then you'll see it clearly. Now, as far as the other changes you made, its fine if you don't want to insert the home media distributor, since its redundant information. I left it as you did. Also, with the screenwriter Jeb Stuart being referenced, I also left it in as it previously was, even though it's not necessary given the fact that it's established that he's one of the screenwriters from numerous sources throughout the article.


 * Next is the plot section, Griffith-Jones, as mentioned in previous conversations, I noted the plot contains too many details that lack importance. Here is a quick summary of details that are not important:

1) successful vascular surgeon 2) saving the guard's life by dragging him out of the bus 3) while the injured are taken to a nearby hospital 4) While leaving the hospital, he is recognized by the injured guard 5) Gerard and his team also go to the jail with the same suspicion, and Gerard spots Kimble as he is leaving. A chase ensues, in which Gerard fires several shots at Kimble which are stopped by bulletproof glass. Gerard chases Kimble into Chicago's St. Patrick's Day parade where Kimble barely escapes. 6) hostile police officers, who believe Kimble murdered the transit cop aboard the train, and are instructed to shoot him on sight. 7) since he is still technically a fugitive, despite his innocence. Once inside the car, Gerard unlocks his handcuffs

All these particular details are not important. Just as a quick example, throughout the entire film, Jones' character chases and shoots at Ford's character. Why is the particular scene at the parade even mentioned? There's nothing important about that detail. So Griffith-Jones, when you assert: The previous version reads better., that's clearly incorrect. But that brings us to a more important issue which I discovered regarding this section. I did some research, and I noticed that the phrase usage and content almost word for word in a number of areas originates from the user-edited IMDb website. This plot summary was copied and pasted from that site as displayed HERE. Now thats disturbing in itelf for two reasons. First, for copying and pasting content from another website, and second for copying information originating from a user-edited website. Now all those details might be satisfactory for IMDb, but not for Wikipedia. This is also the reason I changed a bit of the wording and text. I also removed the irrelevant details. But I would like to also note in compromise, I did insert only the last name of the actors and removed the sourcing since we are going by the film as you originally instructed.


 * Next problem area, the Production section. The section is referenced by a fan-based user edited website and a dead link. The rest of the section is unsourced. Also, it contains numerous grammar errors. Such as then-Mayor Richard Daley or redundant content usage: he climbs a ladder and runs down the roofline of the historic rowhouses. A sentence later, the rowhouses of the historic neighborhood. The paragraph also contains pointless information like, In one scene during the car chase, a road sign pointing to Murphy can be seen. Now in a temporary fix, I corrected the grammar, removed the insufficient sourcing and sourced it with references from a non-user edited website and the dvd for the film, which clearly displays the St. Patricks parade encounter. I didn't want to delete the rest of the paragraph, as to not leave it devoid of content. I will attempt to find sufficient sources for the other claims made.


 * Novel section. I only added proper sourcing and a minor ce. The section contains no sourcing. It could also be expanded in depth. I'll attempt to do that at a another time in the future. But at the moment, the content is virtually the same. It just adds proper sourcing.


 * Same story for the Sequel section. The content is virtually the same as before. Just added proper sourcing since the section didn't contain any to begin with.

I'm only asking you to use your intellegence when making a revert. Read the edit summary, read the changes, and see how the content is improved from its previous derisory state. Moovi (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Moovi, the attitude you have evinced throughout this process (including in the impertinent message you posted on my talk page) has been combative, impatient, and stubborn. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and I think we have been cooperative with many of the changes you have suggested.  But, when multiple editors have disagreed with you, and suggested that you slow down and seek consensus, it seems that this is the route you should take.  Simply repeating yourself, in a louder voice, is not going to achieve the outcome you are seeking. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr. T.O.J., I tend to disagree with what your saying. This particular article is not a "collaborative project". If it were, you would allow me to edit without reverting my changes giving no plausible explanation. Aside from one section, the Awards section, you haven't compromised on any of my changes. You constantly ignore everything I've been saying. If anything, I've been the only one making compromises so far accomodating a portion of your selected complaints. Your also not making any effort to review the content that I put forth. It doesn't take that long to view a few small sections of improvement. I'm not asking to you to review a novel. You are exhibiting clear ownership qualities in relation to this page. A portion of what your saying is also incorrect. There hasn't been "multiple editors" who disagree with my changes. Its been entirely you and another editor who neither seem to have their facts straight after being proven wrong. I've been more than patient waiting for your response to the improvements. You have yet to do so. Do you have anything helpful to add or say to the points and issues above that I mentioned?  Or do you want to keep on ignoring what I have to say, and continue doing nothing? Your not cooperating. Moovi (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC

Plot summary
It is interesting that you jump to the conclusion that our plot summary, I quote, "originates from the user-edited IMDb website. This plot summary was copied and pasted from that site as displayed ... " – what evidence do you have for claiming that one is the newer or older than the other? – Gareth Griffith-Jones   – The Welsh  Buzzard''  – 11:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what is it that I am declaring? I have neither insisted nor maintained anything in my post above –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 15:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps you should do a little more research before making an assertion like that. Again, what your saying appears to be incorrect. The entire plot section was copied virtually word for word a number of years ago. Throughout the last few years, it has seen quite a number of revisions and reincarnations. Here is the PLOT SUMMARY from 2007. As you can see, its a virtual carbon copy from the user-edited IMDb website. Moovi (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "... an assertion like that."


 * You appear to be asserting that I'm jumping to a false conclusion that the plot summary originates from IMDb. I checked the user edited history on that website, and discovered a user by the name of "Roboclerk" inserted that summary 5 years ago. That figures just about right as to when the summary here on wikipedia was edited a little over 4 years ago to that identical same effect. But you seem to be missing the point. The point is, is that there are too many details to the plot that are irrelevant and not important, making it not-concise. As outlined above, those particular details don't belong in the summary. They are not needed. Moovi (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 20:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot accept that I made that assertion; I merely asked a question, to which you have made an assumption, wrongly as it happens. You should calm down. My interpretation is that in the past, rather than your reducing the plot summary, your earlier attempts have been to lengthen it rather than abbreviate it –&#32;


 * When I get a chance later tonight, I'll review the details and length of the summary. Moovi (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WP plot summaries are regularly copied and pasted throughout the internet. It is very difficult to tell which came first or which was the source.  As IMDb plot summaries are user-created, it is of little importance one way or the other.  The point is for the summary to be accurate, succinct, and free of unnecessary details and overlinking. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  17:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr. Griffith, I reviewed the changes in the plot summary, and it appears to be a reduction, not an expansion. It's a reduction of around 385-390 bytes from its current incarnation, if I did the math correctly. You might have previously misinterpreted the byte amount, because I also edited other sections around the same time. It was not just the plot summary section alone. Below are a list of most of the changes trying to make it more concise and removing unimportant details:


 * 1) successful vascular surgeon in Chicago, Illinois to a surgeon in Chicago
 * 2) saving the guard's life by dragging him out of the bus—and flees into the night to Kimble escapes the destructive collision and flees the scene.
 * 3) round up the escaped convicts while the injured are taken to a nearby hospital. Removed - Unecessary details
 * 4) While leaving the hospital, he is recognized by the injured guard Removed - Unecessary details
 * 5) Gerard and his team also go to the jail with the same suspicion, and Gerard spots Kimble as he is leaving. A chase ensues, in which Gerard fires several shots at Kimble which are stopped by bulletproof glass. Gerard chases Kimble into Chicago's St. Patrick's Day parade where Kimble barely escapes. Removed - Unecessary details
 * 6) Food and Drug Administration to FDA (no need to fully spell it out or link it. Not pertinent info)
 * 7) They begin to fight while being chased by Gerard and hostile police officers, who believe Kimble murdered the transit cop aboard the train, and are instructed to shoot him on sight. to They begin to fight while being chased by the marshals and police.
 * 8) Nichols turns to shoot Gerard but at the last moment Kimble hits him from behind, saving Gerard's life to Nichols injures Renfro and confiscates his gun. Nichols then attempts to shoot Gerard, but Kimble attacks him from behind, rendering him unconscious. (A better understanding of how Nichols obtained the gun, without too many details.)
 * 9) Kimble is taken into custody, since he is still technically a fugitive, despite his innocence. Once inside the car, Gerard unlocks his handcuffs as they are driven away. to Kimble is later exonerated and driven away from the crime scene by Gerard.


 * Do you see what I'm trying to display here? There's not a dramatic difference in the summary to begin with aside from a few important points. Chiefly, trying to remove unecessary details and verbiage to the plot. There's also just a few minor grammar corrections. But for the most part, the central core of the plot is the same. Also, I added just the last names of the actors in the plot as every plot section does to identify which characters are played by whom. And I believe as I mentioned earlier, the plot length is shortened by a few hundred bytes, not expanded. I think as editors here on Wikipedia, we're probably in agreement that we don't want this article, or any other article to amount to a simple copy n paste job. It's not what it supposed to be. I'm sure we agree that editors should be a little more innovative and actually use their intelligence to formulate text to insert into the article. That's an additional reason that I might have switched a few words here and there to differentiate it from "Roboclerk's" version on IMDb. So do you agree to these improvements? Can we proceed with the changes? Moovi (talk) 2:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Moovi. I have taken the liberty of automatically numbering your list of changes above, to facilitate any subsequent discussion –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 19:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)