Talk:Our Gang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Our Gang is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 24, 2005.
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.
Featured article FA
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Overhaul

I'll be doing a somewhat major overhaul of this page, to give it more structure and to give the earlier version of the gang their due.

Well, now I'm done. --b. Touch 03:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting and thoughtful

Good article-could use a bit of a link cleanup. Quill 22:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Entire bit needs to be removed, IMO.

The following section needs to be removed:

In later years, a large number of adults falsely claimed to have been members of the popular group. A long list of people, including persons famous in other capacities such as Nanette Fabray [1] [2], Tony Dow's mother Muriel Montrose [3], Gloria Winters [4], and Jimmy Weldon [5] have had biographical write-ups that falsely claimed that they were Our Gang kids. Eddie Bracken's official biography was once altered to state that he appeared in Our Gang instead of The Kiddie Troupers, although he himself had no knowledge of the change. The obituaries of some of these people, such as Lucille Brown [6] and Sara Jane Roberts [7], stated falsely that they were in the series. Ms. Brown's obituary claimed that she had played Farina, who was actually played by Allen Hoskins, a male.

These websites are really not notable enough, and we most definitely don't refer to old copies of our pages... well, there was one article (can't remember which one), but it was an exception to the rule. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I can revise it slightly, and use references from the Maltin-Bann book. --FuriousFreddy 14:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

A long list of people, including persons famous in other capacities such as Nanette Fabray and Eddie Bracken (Maltin & Bann 241-242).

is not a sentence. (I would fix it, but I don't know what it' supposed to say.) Revolver 01:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The other half of that sentence must have gotten lost in the editing process. I fixed it it reads: A long list of people, including persons famous in other capacities such as Nanette Fabray and Eddie Bracken, have all claimed to be or have been publically stated as being former Our Gang kids (Maltin & Bann 241-242). --FuriousFreddy 02:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kid from Borneo

The copy under the poster for this title says it was not included King World's "Little Rascals" TV syndication of the shorts. Not true; I saw it many times in the 1950s along with the others. We were always running around going "Yum, yum, eat 'em up", like the "Wild Man" in the story does. This needs to be fixed; also, all titles listed need to be wikified. - J.V. Cremonum

I can confirm this, since I also recall seeing this episode on television in the 1960s. Even if the details are now fuzzy -- I would have been about 5 years old -- the "eat 'em up" line is unforgettable. Csernica 02:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I revised the caption. I read, in the Maltin/Bann book, a list of films King World deleted from the package, and Kid From Borneo is on it. I don't have an exact date for when the banning was actually done, however. Before 1964, other distributors, including Monogram Pictures, broadcast Little Rascals films. King World only started syndicating the films in 1964. --FuriousFreddy 04:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To clarify: I saw it in the late 1960s, definitely not earlier than 1966 and possibly later. To be fair, I don't recall seeing it more than once or twice, and never in the 1970s. Perhaps King World yanked it from the package only after a couple of years. Csernica 20:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Perhaps. I don't have an exact date, so, y'never know. Still a great short, though ("Uhn-UH, brutha--I don't want no wild mans nibblin' on me!") --FuriousFreddy 21:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as wikifying all the titles listed, I have to disagree. It would result in a plethora of redlinks unless someone were to make articles for all of them. That being said, not all of the films are notable enough for their own articles, so I think it best (in the interest of visual appeal) to leave each unlinked unless (or until) ana article is written, which is generally what has been done. --FuriousFreddy 21:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Future child actors

"...in contrast to a number of previous, contemporary, and future child actors" How can they be compared to future child actors? --Andy M. 06:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that depends on the context; future as it relates to the time of filming (ie, the 30s) or future measured from now? I read it as referring to child actors of the 40s and onward... -- Xinit 07:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actors (or any other sorts of entertainers) of any one period can be compared to those of another...or at l;east that's what Leonard Maltin says (he spends a substantial amount of time in the Our gang book downing modern-day child actors and comparing them to the kids in this series (lemme footnote that, btw). --FuriousFreddy 14:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commonplace Integration?

"Such a thing had never been done before in cinema, but was 'commonplace' after the success of Our Gang." Was it really that commonplace after Our Gang? When looking at old movies it seems like blacks and whites never mixed on the screen except in the most stereotyped of roles. Perhaps blacks and whites appeared on screen together, but as "equals" seems to be stretching things a bit. Also, what was the state of integration on screen prior to Our Gang. There is no question that Our Gang DID present boys, girls, whites, and blacks together in a much more even way (Almost anyone in the series might save the day), but what influence did it have? Jimaginator 12:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Not long after Our Gang went out of production is when you started getting films like No Way Out, Imitation of Life, and the like, which explored racism and the equality of blacks and whites. What that sentence primarily refers to, however, is the casting of white and black actors as friends in movies, something that is commonplace nowadays (i.e., after Our Gang). When I wrote that sentence, what I personally had in mind are the plethora of cartoons & kids' comic books that have integrated casts (examples" Archie, Peanuts, and Hey Arnold!, which is basically an animated Our Gang for the 1990s. --FuriousFreddy 14:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be appropriate to expand a little in the article on the influence that Our Gang had immediately following it's appearance. Jimaginator 14:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Well, immediately following its inception, there was the plethora of sinmilar kiddie comedies, all of which featured a Black kid right alongside the white ones. Those, however, are already mentioned. There were also plety of similar kid-based comics with Black kids alongside the white ones a la Our Gang, but I'd need to do more research on them. But, again, when I said "after the success", I didn't mean immediately after, in reference to adult actors of different races appearing as equals. The wouldn't come along until integration hit in the 1960s. The only point being made in the sentence is that Our Gang was first, which it most definitely was. --FuriousFreddy 15:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Post-production history

This may be splitting hairs, but here goes. In film and television production the term "post-production" is used for the editing process. When we (I'm a TV editor) say a project is in "post-production" we mean it has been shot, but is in the process of editing (or music scoring etc.). So, if someone agrees and can think of a more appropriate heading, that would be nice, but maybe my use of industry-jargon is too much? Just a thought... Tony 20:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just "post-history", perhaps? --FuriousFreddy 21:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Copyright

The pictures in this acticle are against the law. Maby they are free in the USA, but they are not free in all countrys of the world. That's against the rules of Wikipedia. So the pictures must be deleted. --84.129.113.228 19:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

At german Wikipedia we find out, that the pictures that are uses on this article, are against the european law. As the english wikipeida is not only an US wikipedia, the pictueres must be deleted. So please leave the pictues out of the article. If you have an permission from hal roach to use pictueres, than they can be add in the article again. --Hhp4 04:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

At german wikipedia the pictueres have allready been deleted, because there are maby not allowed. --Hhp4 04:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There's not much of a point of responding to this foolishness, but I will make this plain: STOP. You will be blocked if you continue to vandalize the page. We have already taken care of the image copyright and fair use claims for this article to the extent that we need to. Thank you kindly. --FuriousFreddy 04:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Reading the German Our Gang article and the back history, it's obvious why the images are being deleted: screenshots are tagged with GDFL tags, as if Wikipedia editors had created them. If you tag those German Wikipedia images correctly or use images from the dozen or so public domain Our Gangs, you'll solve your problem. But, right now, you (and/or whoever else) are causing more problems by vandalizing the English Wikipedia. Every image in this article has been clearly and properly tagged as per our guidelines. Therefore, you or whoever else: cease and decist vandalizing this article. --FuriousFreddy 04:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The image are from public domain sources. And some pictues was the same than in this article. But they say US-PD imagages are NOT automaticly allowed in all countrys of the world. So the pictures could not be used in any wikipedia. Wikipedia ist free information for every country, not only for the USA.

And it's very intersting how free speech is used in english wikipedia. 1th the copyright information was deleted. --84.129.72.86 04:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Our servers are located in the United States, As such, we are only required to follow U.S. law. That is how the internet works. You are not helping anything by continuously removing the pictures, and you will be blocked if you continue. --FuriousFreddy 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thats not an argument. The same argument, the servers is in the USA was used in german wikipedia. But they same wikipedia is information that is used in all countrys. From Wikipeida were made DVD's. And if on this DVD's are protected pictures, that could made a lot of trouble for the Wikipedia foudaition in other countrys. Only if an copyright holder says himself that a picture can be used free everywhere, (GNU licence) that it can be used in wikipeia.
The pictures are from www.archive.org. That are US-PD-movies. But they say not GNU licence.
--84.129.68.124 05:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
When the DVDs are made from the Wikipedia, judgement are passed at that time on whether or not to include them or not. But DVDs aren't made directly from the website files, and they aren't made from the English Wikipedia either. As far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, what I told you aboutis indeed an argument. If you have a problem with that, go discuss it with the Wikimedia Foundation, not here with me. As far as this article goes, you have two choices: (a) leave it alone, unless you have a helpful contribution to make, or (b) be blocked for vandalism if you try to keep removing pictures. This is my final reply on this subject; good night. --FuriousFreddy 05:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, calm down friends. Keep the following in mind: the servers of Wikipedia are indeed in the USA - BUT - the English Wikipedia is NO US-American Wikipedia, but an All-English one. So ALL laws of English speaking countries have to be respected, as long as it is only called "English", not only the ones of the USA. Was there a check, if the pictures are also under "PD" or "Fair Use" in, say, Canada, Australia, Ireland or Great Britain? It IS the internet-way, see, that some contents that are allowed in one country may not be allowed in another. And as the English Wikipedia is serving all English speaking countries that should be checked quite properly, not only with the text of an article but also with the accompanying media as long as there is no explicite US-English-Wikipedia. --Wittkowsky 10:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that's a red herring. Freddy is right and he has explained the situation clearly. Whatever happens to be your first language, if you are in any nation (whatever its major language(s)) where copyright laws lack the concept of "fair use", you are free to consider legal dangers or your conscience and decide not to use en-Wikipedia. You may of course be unhappy about this, and you can express your dissatisfaction on an appropriate discussion page. You can express it on this talk page, if you wish, though doing so is a bit pointless. What you can't do is delete the images from this article because you're unhappy with the rules here. -- Hoary 11:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] en: vs. de:

For the benefit of en: users who don't work on de:; de: doesn't allow any unfree images whatsoever. de: wants to be completely free and reusable worldwide. Any genuine confusion here may be the result of someone inappropriately applying the de: policy of worldwide reusability to en:. Wittkowsky, en: makes, um, generous use of the fair use doctrine. It is often controversial, it is often abused, but the images used here are well within the standards that en: has set. Please don't confuse de:'s goals with some kind of international copyright law; you're only going to confuse the issue. Take the time instead to try and understand Wikipedia:Fair use policy here on en:, and then consider looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use for ways to help keep actual abuses of it to a minimum. Thanks. Jkelly 17:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New 1922 (?) image

The image of the early "Our Gang" cast members that's currently up there is very blurry and low-resolution, so I thought I'd try to find a better one. I found this one, from 1922, but one of the cast members seems to be different than in the 1923 picture - there's a "Jay R. Smith" instead of a "Jack Davis". What's odd is that according to the wikipedia article, Jay Smith didn't start appearing in the shorts until 1925. So is the website wrong, or is wikipedia wrong?

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone thinks that the image could be put to some use within the article. Esn 09:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The website is wrong. Jay R. Smith joined the gang quite some time after Ernie Morrison left, and I'm pretty sure that is Andy Samuel in that picture and not Jay R. Smith. It was also probably taken sometime in late 1923, not 1922, based upon Farina's evident age in the picture. --FuriousFreddy 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fun with dates

At two places in one paragraph, an overzealous bot "corrected"

1930's Title

to

1930s Title

I'm pleased to see superfluous apostrophes removed from plurals, but here the "'s" is possessive. To correct the matter and remove temptation, I changed both to

Title (1930)

which I think is better style anyway. —Tamfang 06:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/u/r/Talk%7EOur_Gang_dee9.html"