Talk:The Old Man & the Gun

A films self-description can not be used to characterize it.
Look at Fargo (film). Then look at Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Then look at Ed Gein. then ask “what, exactly, does ‘based on’ mean, if anything?” Qwirkle (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We can’t use something in a a fictionalized film for assertion of fact.
Compare plot summarized here [to] actual history - this is a very fictionalized story dressed up with some historical vignettes. Qwirkle (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And that is still you're opinion. The film states it is "mostly a true story", which is not entirely different from "loosely" based on, expect for the crucial difference that the former is a fact from the film and the latter is your POV & OR addition. Many editors do not like to be reverted and you clearly are no different, but let this go already. The previous edit has the advantage of being correct and supported by the subject material. But if you really, really feel that strongly about it, you can always post an RfC and seek consensus, or go through WP:DR and the steps available there. But edit-warring to push your unsupported POV is not the way to go. Self-revert (for now) and address this properly. - wolf  05:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Nothing taken from within the film itself is a fact, in the sense the word is being used here. It’s at best a claim, an assertion. Works of fiction regularly claim not to be; that does not mean, for the obvious example, that we should claim that “Fargo” is fact-based.


 * You reverted to your prefered version with the misleading edit summary “c/e” here.


 * You reverted again, with the inaccurate claim "very loosely" are WP:WEASEL words here.


 * Then, you again reverted, with the claim..well, the reader can see for himself here


 * What you have not done so far, though, is explain how a statement within a work of fiction can be taken as a fact outside of the work, except in the trivial sense that the assertion was made within the fiction. That’s what you need to do before you revert again, for the fourth time. Qwirkle (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "Fargo" is relevant here. When you say; "You reverted to your prefered version with the misleading edit summary “c/e”" - you are incorrect. (I'm sure it was an honest mistake and not a deliberate attempt to deceive). That edit was not a "revert", just a striaght-forward bit of copy-editing. So the summary was not "misleading" it was actually correct. Your unsupported and personal opinion that the film is "loosely based" on the actual lead characters life are weasel words. And the simple fact remains that the opening title card states; "This story, also, is mostly true". That is what the film tells us. The film does not tell us that it is "loosely based" on the true story. If you've seen the film, and read the lead characters's BLP along with one of the interviews linked within, you would know that the writers have taken some dramatic licence and added fictional elements. That is why the title card says what it says. With film articles, we often add to the article elements seen in the film, and that is far better than adding our own opinions. You, clearly don't like to be reverted, and are resorting to an edit-war supported by, well... nonsense. You say just above that I need to "explain how a statement within a work of fiction can be taken as a fact outside of the work, except in the trivial sense that the assertion was made within the fiction.". Uh... wut? The title card statement itself is not part of the fiction. It is part of the opening credits, the very first thing viewers see, before any credits for players and crew. It the producers telling the audience that while the film does follow the story of Tucker, it is not strictly autobiographical. I dont know how many other ways I can explain this to you. You are either deliberately pretending you do not grasp this, or perhaps you actually don't. I have clearly supported my edit while you have failed to justify your revert, or the need for your revert war. FTR; I repeatedly requested you come to the talk page early Friday night, but you didn't until the next day, only after you hit 3RR. This has been a completely needless exercise. If you didn't agree with my initial edit, you could've proactively come to the talk page. You didn't. After I reverted you, you could've (per brd) gone to the talk page, but didn't. After I requested a second time that you discuss, you still didn't. And while demanding that I justify my edits, you have failed to justify yours. Your behaviour on your own talk page in relation to this issue has been nothing short of combative and bizarre. Geez... give it a rest already. - wolf  08:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "Fargo" is relevant here. That kinda sums the problem up, yes. So why not ask someone (else) why it might be, or, better still, wait until someone (else) comments on it. You could do the same for each other point raised, in fact. See if anyone agrees with your personal interpretation of WP:WEASEL...and so forth.
 * Or, you can open it up at WP:ANEW and so forth. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your assertion that you didn’t revert anything, you merely edited it, and only it, all away. Qwirkle (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fargo and The Old Man & the Gun are two different movies. Made by different people and based on different material. You're treating the two as if they are identical and as such, Fargo somehow supports your edit and invalidates mine. It doesn't. And yes, maybe someone will show up and show how "very loosely" aren't weasel words, somehow, because so far it seems you can't. I would only, possibly, go to AN3 if someone violated 4RR. I never claimed that "I didn't revert anything". I did make a couple of reverts, but the edit you keep claiming was a revert in fact was not. I didn't use 'undo'. The edit history didn't log it as a revert. That was the first time I had ever edited that sentence in the lead, so I was not "reverting back to my preferred version ".So, do you have anything else to add? Anything collaborative? And mature perhaps? Or will there just be more of your "I'm right and you're wrong because I say so." type stuff? Because that doesn't make for a productive discussion. -  wolf  11:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"Based on" and Sourcing
Both sides of the recent edit war have added unsourced or poorly-sourced content to this article: What we need here is a reliable, independent, secondary source to tell us how closely the film follows real-life events. Until that source is provided, "based on" will have to do. This covers the entire spectrum and follows the sources which are currently used in the article. I would ask involved editors and  to focus their discussion on how reliable sources describe the subject and refrain from using this talk page as a forum to debate the details of its accuracy. –dlthewave ☎ 18:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "...and very loosely based on the true-life story of Forrest Tucker (criminal) adds a "loosely" caveat that is unsourced. The edit summary "Compare plot summarized here tp actual history - this is a very fictionalized story dressed up with some historical vignettes." indicates that the "loosely" claim is original research.
 * "...and, as per an opening title card the film, is "mostly a true story" based on the life of Forrest Tucker" seems to be sourced to the movie itself, which is a primary source. Furthermore, it does not include a citation, which means that it fails our most basic verifiability requirement. As Qwirkle pointed out, movies are often presented as "true stories" regardless of their actual veracity. However, it is not our role as editors to assess how accurate this particular movie happens to be.
 * First, “indicates” is a little strong there. The sanction on major WP:OR fades out at the point where it is simply dead obvious, WP:SKYISBLUE, and items in the lead need only be verifiable, not verified. A glance at sources describing the film’s factual accuracy shows that they praise its faithfulness to fact when describing flashback vignettes, but that almost everything in the central plot is invented. Qwirkle (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a "sky is blue" situation. OR applies. On Wikipedia, "verifiable" means that a specific reliable source is provided to support the statement. It does not mean that the reader can go find a source themselves. If an item in the lede does not include a citation, it must be supported by a source elsewhere in the article.
 * If the sources describe the film as you say, why not avoid the whole kerfuffle by simply citing one of them? –dlthewave ☎ 20:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would you blank the plot section? You mentioned some "what I remember" edit summary, but since you were in the page history, you saw that the plot had been edited since. Surely you could've shown a little good faith and accepted that the plot was now more accurate? Thankfully exercised some common sense and reverted you. And why the "unreferenced section" tag? How many film articles have you seen with refs in the plot section? Film plots are written by people who have seen the film and are using the film as a source. I have a copy of this one, I watched it, read the Tucker BLP then came here and updated/corrected the plot. Surely you saw that? But moving on; so whereas "very loosely" is not mentioned at any point in the film to compare it the actual story of Tucker, the producers did specifically state that the film is "mostly a true story", in regard to the source material. But, as has been pointed out, the film is a primary source, so I will find and add some secondary, reliable sourcing to support my edit. Then hopefully can all move on from this to more worthwhile endeavours. -  wolf  23:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I blanked the plot section because I was unfamiliar with WP:FILMPLOT. I didn't realize that this is one of the few situations on Wikipedia where it's appropriate to have an entire section that's unreferenced. After I read the relevant part of MOS, I realized my error and removed the tag. –dlthewave ☎ 23:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I always thought that was kinda odd too. But there isn't really another way to write plots, so that's that. - wolf  00:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Still WP:OR
has again reverted to his claim that this is a largely factual film with a summary of there are two (2) attached secondary sources. If you want to challenge them, WP:RSN is the place.) Neither source does more than note that the film makes the claim. The first, The Old Man & The Gun' Is A Soulful Tribute To Robert Redford's Movies, leaving aside the problems of provenance, merely emphasizes the tie-in with an earlier Redford film, as does the second, The Sundown Kid: Robert Redford returns to robbing banks in David Lowery's 'The Old Man & the Gun. Someone merely noting a films claims does nothing to bolster them. This is still at the level of proof of actual accuracy we see in Fargo orThe Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Qwirkle (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I made a "claim that this is a largely factual film"...? - wolf  17:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly. That’s one of the possible interpretations of your words in the lead. If you want to split hairs and point out that it isn’t the only possible interpretation, the obvious response would be something about more precise writing being needed, especially in the first couple sentences of the lead.
 * This bit in the film isn’t about the film’s accuracy, it’s about continuity with other with other Redford films, as both souces you provide emphasize at fulsome length (and I mean that in the proper sense, stinking.) It’s an homage, if you will, to Butch Cassidy.... Qwirkle (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that was just your "interpretation"... got it. And those aren't "my words in the lead", they are a well-supported quote from the film itself. - wolf  18:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The source which is supposedly quoting reads “This story, also, is mostly true,” so, yes, those are all his words in the lead, even those between quotation marks. Qwirkle (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, no... the words "mostly true" are in the title card, but I've edited it slightly to make it easier for you to grasp. Isn't time you found something more worthwhile to do? - wolf  19:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A quote, unless marked with brackets or ellipses (or used by liars), is supposed to be in its original form. Otherwise it isn’t really a quote. No changing order, leaving out words, or otherwise mutilating it. No removing vital context. This isnt a quote about the accuracy of the film, it’s about its connection to other works, as anyone...no, almost anyone, obviously, who reads it in context can see. Qwirkle (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , edit warring with a comment about taking it to talk about a matter raised a day or two before on talk is, at best careless, and at worst mendacious. Qwirkle (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

And repeatedly edit-warring to remove sourced content and push that which is solely your own OR/POV is tendentious and obnoxious. drop the stick. - wolf  01:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not how it works. First, you answer the point raised above, and either edit (in the real sense) your work to reflect it, or revert to your prefered version, and I mark it up disputed while waiting for third parties’ take on it. But what you dont do is write “take it to talk” when its already there, unanswered by you. Qwirkle (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and now you’ve again reverted to your prefered version, with an edit summary of You are past the point of.being disruptive. Stop edit-warring and go to the talk page.) when you still haven’t addressed the point raised a day or two before except by reverting edits. The source doesn't necessarily support your edit, except as a claim made in the film, and one that may be made entirely for cinematic reasons, not fact. Qwirkle (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you're disputing anything that takes place on screen...? - wolf  02:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that is a strawman. Here are a few things which need to be adressed.*Your wording has several possible meanings, some of which are untrue. The “present” of the film is almost entirely fiction, it is not “mostly true”. (The same can not be said of the flashbacks, which appear to be largely factual.)
 * The lead is meant as a summary, not a catchall. This particular stylistic homage to earlier Redford films may not be lead-worth in itself.
 * Something in quotation marks in an article is supposed to be an actual quote. The butchered quote says and, as per an opening title card the story, which is "mostly true",, while the source says “ “This story, also, is mostly true.” That “also” needs explaining, and the first source you used, Huffponian demi-blogshite though it may be, does not disappoint. The opening frame Before we even glimpse Redford, “The Old Man & the Gun” fires off a subtle ode to one of his most celebrated movies, the 1969 western “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.” Audiences had swooned over Redford two years earlier in the romantic comedy “Barefoot in the Park,” co-starring Jane Fonda, but it was his turn as the taciturn outlaw known as the Sundance Kid that enshrined the actor in pop culture. The character said little, yet Redford’s dapper face spoke volumes ― something only a first-rate movie star can pull off. “Butch Cassidy” opens with the announcement “Most of what follows is true.” In tribute, “The Old Man & the Gun” begins with an azure title card and yellow text that reads “This story, also, is mostly true.” “It’s a direct reference to ‘Butch and Sundance,’” Lowery said.
 * This is not a cite to use regarding literal factual accuracy. Qwirkle (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(break)
Is this what I can expect going forward? Whining about "strawmen", looong patches of meaninginless quote that no one is going to read, all with a persistent, undying sneer of "fuck you" from beginning to end? Your behaviour is appalling, whether its disruptive revert-warring here, or the sophomoric nonsense on your own talk page, let's face it, if you had a list of the top 3 things you'd like to accomplish here, cooperative discourse would come in at about... #17. I however, am willing to try and work with you here. You complained about the quote, so... how about some dots? Would dots make you feel better about it? Dots? - wolf  03:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you haven’t read the article, you shouldn’t quote it. If you think the quote is meaningless, you shouldn’t quote it. Qwirkle (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. And...? - wolf  17:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don’t quote it. Qwirkle (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because you say so. - wolf  22:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not support the passage being in the first sentence of the lead section. It is extremely shoehorned in and unnecessary to point out upfront. If anything, Robert Redford needs to be mentioned more upfront because he is the key notability factor for the film per WP:LEAD. (David Lowery is nowhere near that.) The first paragraph should name Redford, Lowery, the other actors, the source material for the film. The second paragraph should cover historical accuracy, critical reception, awards, etc. There could be more paragraphs, but the historical-accuracy summary should be after the first paragraph. A quick search engine test shows results like this and this that could make up a "Historical accuracy" section that can then be summarized in the middle of the lead section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, given that both sources used to mistakely support ideas about factual accuracy are really about the continuity of this with other Redford works, that should be what is in the lead. Regarding one of the sources, Matthew Jacobs’s The Old Man & The Gun' Is A Soulful Tribute To Robert Redford's Movies,, whadduhya think? It’s Huffpo, and Huffpo is notorious for has-beens, wannabes, no-hopers, and suchlike blogshite, but there are real exceptions. Is Mr. Jacobs one of them? Qwirkle (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That source seems fine to me. The piece appears to fall under HuffPost's Entertainment section, which implies editorial oversight compared to the amateur contributors that are hosted on other parts of the website. It does not necessarily mean this piece trumps other pieces like one from a crime historian. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , would you take a look at the last few edits? I feel the lead is better off without this factoid, although the actual tenor of the source it is supposedly based on, the degree to which the film is a tribute to Redford’s older work, maybe is lead-worthy. Qwirkle (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy
This is stll misrepresenting the accuracy of the film, misusing commentary on a stylistic device to do so. Qwirkle (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)