User talk:Jvthibault

The reddit reference you are trying to add is not encyclopedic, nor is it from a reliable source. Please read Identifying reliable sources and What Wikipedia is not for more information. Let me know if you have further questions or concerns. Sincerely, Kingturtle = (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would consider even fallacious claims of the existence of a private copy of the film encyclopedic if enough public interest arises as a consequence, especially because the article discusses the improbability of such a copy existing at great length. In any event, the top comment in the reddit discussion is a link to a youtube video posted today from the alleged full length recording. You'll note that this video includes an introduction by Melissa Joan Heart which does not appear in any of the pre-existing youtube clips. That introduces the possibility that the uploaded clip is derived from a novel source, and that at least deserves menton in this paragraph:


 * If there are any recorded copies, they have managed to stay off the Internet save for two clips posted on YouTube,[13][14] three different compositions from the soundtrack on the composer's own website, and four fan-posted images from the film whose authenticity are questionable

There are now ostensibly three clips, and I don't see the harm in mentioning that the third was only recently discovered during a reddit discussion on the topic.

Anyway, I won't edit any further, especially since the legitimacy of the user's claims should be known shortly...


 * Wikipedia cannot use fallacious claims unless they are referred to in notable reference sources. Let's say the Huffington Post and E! News posted stories on the fallacious claims. A case could be made to include the story under those citations. Thus far, the fallacious claim is only supported and discussed in an online discussion - therefore, it does not pass the test for reliable sources. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to explain all of this to me, but I'm still trying to learn how this works.....Once again looking at this sentence...


 * If there are any recorded copies, they have managed to stay off the Internet save for two clips posted on YouTube,[13][14] three different compositions from the soundtrack on the composer's own website, and four fan-posted images from the film whose authenticity are questionable

The statement is made that there are exactly two clips of the film on youtube, but the source for this is simply a link to the clips themselves. According to you, such a claim must be referred to by notable reference sources, and here they are not. Doesn't that render this entire paragraph invalid? This was the (faulty) basis for my supposition that the reddit comment may be acceptable for this article.

I suppose I was originally arguing that the article itself seemed to already be making the same mistakes you claimed we were making, so either the article was flawed in places, or I just wasn't understanding some foundational aspect of wikipedia contribution.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.212.125 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct in your thinking. I saw that same issues and removed those links. Wikipedia really should not be providing links to unauthorized videos. The article is definitely flawed in places and still need work. But every article in Wikipedia should be considered a work in progress. Don't let these constraints dissuade you. I'm sure you have great deal of expertise that Wikipedia could use. I hope you stick around and edit more. Kingturtle = (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)