Talk:Kes (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article upgrading needed: You can help.	WP:IA
Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions To contribute in upgrading this stub article to start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image; non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible Plot summary Cast section At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, references in popular culture, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s)) Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to start class and this template will be removed automatically.

Article upgrading needed: You can help.

WP:IA

Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions

To contribute in upgrading this stub article to start class, the following requirements must be met:

Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.)
Film infobox ({{infobox film}})
Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image; non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible
Plot summary
Cast section
At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, references in popular culture, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.)
Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))

Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF

Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to start class and this template will be removed automatically.

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Unknown

This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.

Editing Guidelines

Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article:

If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film)
- For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)
When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references.
Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

1 Illegal behaviour
2 Extinct?
3 Vanity here?
4 Clean up and expansion
5 Spoilers

[edit] Illegal behaviour

In the article: "There is a strong concentration on falconry in the film but the film does not encourage any illegal behaviour with respect to falcons" This is non-factual POV so I called for a reference to back this up (sadly, for one thing no matter how well Billy treats Kes, he doesn't have a licence to keep birds of prey so is technically breaking the law). References have been provided but they were merely more opinion POV, based on interpretations of the film dialogue and situations. A reference should be from a verifiable credible secondary source. WP:Verifiability So I am removing the 'references' and putting back the request for credible references. Magic Pickle 15:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extinct?

Stoo-an extinct? I think not. Ever heard a Geordie speak (yes I know not a Yorkshire accent but still ...) Hmm.

Candy 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was strange, but I haven't stayed long enough up that way recently so I couldn't be sure. You could change it to something like "is no longer used in Yorkshire" -- SteveCrook 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity here?

Following is an extract from a posting made to the SHAKSPER message board today. No comment from me. AndyJones 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, for me the major problem with Wikipedia is that users are allowed to advertise their own often sub-standard work. For example, a chancer called Simon W. Golding has just delivered a vanity-published book on Ken Loach's seminal film, 'Kes'. The book is atrocious beyond belief: as well as being bereft of filmic insight or even the capacity to process basic information, the man literally cannot write a proper sentence; there has been no editor to correct his incompetent English. But the Wikipedia entry on 'Kes - the film' contains a massive plug for this book - one that has to have been placed there by the author or his associates. Every time one intervenes, toning down the self-praise for this book, one's intervention is quickly vandalised off the site, and the glorifying plug for it is restored. This, I am told, is a fairly typical Wikipedia experience.

So the correct procedure is to remove the reference to it. Not to leave the reference and comment on it. -- SteveCrook 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Can you clarify? AndyJones 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the notes about the book - but adding a comment saying how terrible it is, (as someone has been trying to do recently) is still just advertising it. If you agree with the poster quoted and think the book is atrocious then surely all reference to it should be removed. Either that or just leave it as a basic reference because the book exists, but remove all the descriptions. -- SteveCrook 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Until I've actually read this book or seen a proper review that says it's atrocious I would tend to just leave the bare details about the book. It is a book that exists and there are some reviews, like the one in the [http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?sectionid=55&articleid=1245384 that doesn't give the impression that it's atrocious. I suspect there might be a personal vendetta at work against the author. Not by you AndyJones but by whoever is posting these comments. -- SteveCrook 23:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed this sentence just now which was (I assume) sneakily hidden at the bottom of the page.

"The book 'Life After Kes' is vanity-published and very badly written - written by someone who does not have university qualifications. It is full of mistakes and written in a manner that borders on the illiterate. It should not be advertised here on Wikipedia."

Could I point out a few issues to the perpetrator please?

1. PoV about a book or reference are not in the spirit or guidlines of Wikipedia. Please be aware what you are doing is close to sly vandalism.

2. It is not necessary to have university qualifications in order to do anything well and if one has university qualifications it does not necessarily mean that things will be done well. They are non-sequiturs.

3. It is not being advertised. It is a reference. As I have not read the book and did not add the link I cannot add my PoV as to whether it is literature. Perhaps the contributer could express some opinion (or someone else who has read it).

Thank you Candy 14:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I assume the guy who made this edit is the same guy whose posting to SHAKSPER I quote above. Exactly why he thinks vandalising wikipedia in this way is an appropriate response to (allegedly) poor sourcing is not clear to me, at all. Obviously I know his name and email address so I could contact him off-wikipedia. The arrogance of his ridiculous views about University education don't encourage me to believe we'd have a temperate correspondence, though. Let's see if his behaviour becomes a problem. Also we might check if the book in question really is vanity published. If so, it's likely to fall well below the WP:RS standard, and should probably be removed anyway. AndyJones 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up and expansion

I took a lot of what was good and reworded it. Added a brief synopsis with spoiler notice (haven't seen the film for about a year so my memories may be wrong). I purposefully left out Glover's highly amusing (or if you went to school in the north of England sadly accurate) reflection of some PE teachers because although wonderful it wouldn't have added anything.

I would like to try to find some references to the falconry issues in the book (both protests and perhaps info about how they trained the falcon for the film).

The cast part should be expanded to include the main cast by character and actor's name (hence Mr Glover should be added here) and exactly where they were born perhaps (the actor whose name I forget playing the encouraging English teacher was a "foreigner" coming from the neighbouring county of lancashire.

I added extra refs inclucing the BFI top 10 which was already in the text. I removed the reference referred to in the above section (Vanity Here?) purely because compared with the other links it is clearly now sub-standard containing no relevent information to support the film except essentially an advertisement for a book.

Leaving it up to others to make some contributions (probably correct typos and formatting as well) ;) and perhaps take up the flame. Candy 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)