Talk:The Long Island Incident

Fact vs. Fiction
The following discussion originated on talk pages for Bumhoolery and myself:


 * This is not a "work of fiction," it's based on a real-life event and its impact on real-life people. I'm curious why you added the template you did. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The article in question concerns a FILM (stated in the very first sentence) which, though based on a real-life incident, is itself a work of fiction. I am adding the tag once again. The issues behind this tag are extensively discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Real_world_perspective

There is insufficient differentiation between the work of fiction and the event upon which it is based in this article. Instead of removing the tag without addressing the issue, as the creator of this article you should perhaps split it between separate discussions of the film and the incident itself--or simply remove all references to the incident and focus exclusively on the film--so that it complies with Wikipedia standards. Conversely, if your purpose was mainly to address the incident itself, mention of the film at the start of the article should be removed and the rest ammended.

Issues such as these should also be relegated to the article's talk page so that other users may weigh in on the issue. Bumhoolery 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A film is NOT a work of fiction if it's based on a true incident and/or a real-life person. Furthermore, how can there be separate discussions of the film and the incident itself if the film is ABOUT the incident? How could one remove all references to the incident if the incident is the basis of the film? My purpose in writing the article was NOT mainly to address the facts of the incident itself, as they already are described in another Wikipedia article. My article was intended to be about the film based on the event. Are you suggesting biographical films such as Ray or Ali or factual films such as All the President's Men are works of fiction? If so, I'm sorry, but I think you're mistaken. ConoscoTutto 14:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Bumhoolery claims a film is a work of fiction. I maintain it is not if it based on a real-life event and/or individual. Would works such as Gandhi, Ray, or Ali be considered fiction? How about All the President's Men, Missing, or The Insider? According to Bumhoolery's theory, these all would be considered works of fiction simply because they're films. I don't understand his logic. He wants to tag this article as "a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style [that] needs to be cleaned up to explain the fiction and provide non-fictional perspective." How does one explain the "fiction" of a factual piece of work? If Bumhoolery's theory holds true, then all the films I cited above - and all films based on real people or incidents - should be tagged in a similar fashion. What do others think? Thank you for your input. ConoscoTutto 14:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The bulk of this film is fictional because it is a dramatization which, for the majority of its runtime, concerns poorly-documented inter-personal drama involving both real and fictional characters. Said undocumented drama was naturally subject to much creative license by its writers; this opposed to the incident and political fallout themselves, which are indeed well-documented but which were used chiefly as plot points and not extensively depicted in the film. The vast majority of the film's dialogue, blocking, etc. are the result of creative writing and are not documented as fact.  As such, not differentiating between the content of the film and fact in this article is highly inaccurate.  Articles which comply with Wikipedia standards, such as the Gandhi article referenced above, go out of their way to specify what occurs in the FILM as opposed to assuming its plot synopsis is unvarnished fact.  That article is a great example of a good Wikipedia treatment of a work of fiction based on fact. The Ray article, on the other hand, is an example of a non-compliant synopsis which makes no such distinction.


 * Regardless, even if the film were a documentary it would still be necessary to differentiate between its content (which in THAT case would be undebatably non-fictional) and the actual event it depicts so as to not confuse elements likely to be distorted during editing, such as chronology. This film, of course, is no documentary but should still be held to the same basic standards. In the article's current state it is impossible to determine definitively from its content what information was gleaned by the author from the film and what is objectively documented fact not subject to creative license.  Judging from subjective terms used here--"determination," "impulsively" and the like--it is apparent that the article is mainly focused on the film, bringing its credibility as to the actual details of the incident into question.  In response to the concerns mentioned by the author I have applied what may be tags more acceptable to all parties.  I would do the job myself but I am an expert on neither the incident nor the film and so cannot in good conscience shuffle facts around without being sure of their veracity. Bumhoolery 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bumhoolery claims, "The bulk of this film is fictional because it is a dramatization which, for the majority of its runtime, concerns poorly-documented inter-personal drama involving both real and fictional characters. Said undocumented drama was naturally subject to much creative license by its writers; this opposed to the incident and political fallout themselves, which are indeed well-documented but which were used chiefly as plot points and not extensively depicted in the film. The vast majority of the film's dialogue, blocking, etc. are the result of creative writing and are not documented as fact."
 * WHERE are you getting your information??? You say you're not an expert on the film, yet you make the claims above as if you are. Have you even seen the it??? The incident and political fallout are NOT used chiefly as plot points, they are the ENTIRE basis of the film! Bumhoolery adds, "it is apparent that the article is mainly focused on the film." That's the only point you've made that's accurate - I'm the one who wrote the article and it was my intention to write about the film! The actual incident already is described in articles about Colin Ferguson and Carolyn McCarthy (who was a consultant for the film). This article IS about the film. That's why it's called The Long Island Incident. That's why it's described as a film in the opening sentence. Why aren't you understanding this? ConoscoTutto 13:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)