Talk:Madame Medusa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Ping-pong Game

I have two things to ask out of editors of this article, for once, I spend weeks researching the information I originally placed here, it is all factual, at least all the information that was added by me and I feel insulted when people remove it as if I had made it up. You can never have too much information on these kinds of things, so I don't think even tiny details should be removed because those "unimportant details" could be a great answer for someone looking for one, so please, quit messing the article around, both deleting and adding things, the article, as I originally typed it was fine and got congratulated from many people saying how accurate it was, and I consider all this dramatic removal of information to be nothing less than vandalism, so please, stop unless you can prove that anything stated here is "unnencyclopedic". Also, nice job to the person wishing to supposedly add "accurate information", Miss Bianca voiced by Zsa Zsa Gabor? Yeah, great research, what's next, Madame Medusa voiced by Bill Gates? T.W. 21:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You might as well ask someone to source for you the statement "the sky is blue". Honestly, I find it ridiculous how often this article gets its most valuable information sucked out of it. If you're going to leave the article with "Madame Medusa is a character" then what's the point of an article? We all know that, I think the point is to have information PEOPLE DON'T KNOW. Geez. A lot of this information can be verified in the trivia section for The Rescuers at the Internet Movie Database, check there for sources.
Please stop whining and read WP:V. You are the one to find sources if you wish to keep information in this article, not the one removing it. Simply source the damn Ursula thing, then it'd stop getting removed. Interrobamf 04:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You're both getting on my nerves. Be patient, the both of you, I'll get some sources, but it's hard to get the exact sources when you've taken info from over 30 books, websites and DVD featurettes. The facial similarities thing was vaguely stated in Disney's Ursula, so that's one right there, now I just have to find a few others. See, the hard thing is, that you can't really post a source for every claim, because some of them, after you've been told "Ursula was inspired by Madame Medusa" you just notice yourself, so it's not completely easy. I also think, not being sourced is a reason to just remove the section, perhaps adding a {{Fact}} tag somewhere would do while we get sources. T.W. 21:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:V:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
WP:NOR: "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"."
It's quite simple. You cannot add your own unsourced observations because we have no way of knowing that they're factual. If all they said is that "Medusa inspired Ursula", that's all that can be put into Wikipedia, not your ideas about what inspired what. Interrobamf 06:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the obvious in undeniable, we can't always source it and should not be expected to need to source that everyone can clearly see, such as for example "facial similarities" and two "twin pets for monsters" that, everyone can see. The other stuff, surely can be sourced, none of this information I thought of myself, the problem right now for me, is finding the sources, because I don't remember where I got the information from, so patience. T.W. 13:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
No. That there is significance in various traits that you take to be the same is entirely your opinion. It must be sourced. Interrobamf 16:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You know, you're the one who's wrong here. There's two types of "original assumption" here, and the one that was used here was *NOT* breaking the rules. Let me explain, what we had here were "examples" or "possibilites" that made sense and everyone could see that, now going against the policies would have been saying something like "Madame Medusa has been working at the Pawn Shop sixteen years", THAT would need to be sourced because no one will be able to know that from watching the film, the other stuff, could, even if they weren't stated elsewhere. Go to Harry Potter characters' articles and you'll see it all the time, users making assumptions that are not sourced, but are still undeniable possibilites.
  • "Ursula does this and that just like Madame Medusa", unsourced, but a viewer or reader will be able to look at it and say, "that's true" even if there's no written source.
  • "Ursula is related to Madame Medusa", now that would have to be sourced because no one would be able to tell without written proof.

Do you understand what I'm saying? That's why I re-added the section everytime you removed it, because that's information that doesn't need to be sourced, it's "possibilities" that are fully within the policies. You see them all over, Harry Potter pages often contain stuff like "Trelawney's name MIGHT have derived from" and are not sourced. So, I for one think the Ursula page should go back up there. If it doesn't, I personally will contact Wikipedia and explain the situation and you will see how the article section is fully within the rules and policies.

Now that I think about it, it's true. Nowhere did the section say that the similarities WERE inspired by Madame Medusa, I stated similarities that POSSIBLY had been inspired by Madame, to give the reader an idea and to support the basic fact that Ursula WAS inspired by the other character. After reading the examples given by this other person, yes, it's true that often in Wikipedia I've come accross articles stating unsourced possibilities and yes, these were things that I could definitely agree with and didn't need a source to confirm them for me, so I think the other person is right and that I wasn't at all going against Wikipedia's policies with the article. T.W. 22:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Just as I had thought, the Connections "claims" are well within the site's policies because the statements are not implied to be "factual" but rather, "obvious possibilities" and like I said before, this is seen all over Wikipedia. 67.174.4.138 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bamf is right. Don't speculate. Don't add comparisons unless you can cite them to reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as "unsourced comparisons" are allowed in hundreds of other articles, this one is no exception, so you better start cleaning up those "generally approved" articles before taking action here because the same rules apply to all articles. Not to mention, as I stated above, Wikipedia "elites" gave their approval, even if their answer was rather vague, so I think that should be enough. 67.174.4.138 00:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Who are those "Wikipedia elites"? Where is their approval? How does their approval overturn policy? As I said before, the presence of crap does not justify the presence of more crap. Your logic is akin to letting motorists break speeding laws without consquence because some get away with it. Interrobamf 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No, this isn't going to be the last article cleaned up. Speculation should be removed on sight from other articles as well. If there's any unsourced speculation in other articles, clean that up too.
Let me make this absolutely clear, since there was some misunderstanding. UNSOURCED SPECULATION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR WIKIPEDIA. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, now different admits also see things differently apparently, that's a big issue (No need to source that, I hope :) ). Anyways, you guys, don't continue the war, this will be simply resolved by next Friday, I'll give them an online source, and then Ursula-lovers-who-don't-like-the-idea-that-their-character-is-a-rip-off-of-another will just have to deal with it and will go clean up the Harry Potter articles that are apparently also full of crap. So, don't worry about. I thank all of you for loving my article so much, I appreciate it and I'm glad I started it. T.W. 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't even care about Ursula. Please stop assuming I have some motive beyond enforcing policy. Interrobamf 22:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
How noble. 67.174.4.138 00:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

T.W.; it says in the Little Mermaid Platinum Edition DVD that Ursula was inspired by ACTORess Divine. Does that mean your going to go over to HEr page and say that Glen Milstead stole his legendary Drag Persona from a Disney Villian that very few people know by name? Divine as the character inspiration has been public since an article appeared in People Magazine when the film was first released. Also many people CLAIM reading that Divine was in talks to voice Ursula before passing away. You will notice however they haven't written this in the Divine or Ursula articles, and if they had it would be erased due to the fact the time line of the film production, and release does not match the time when Divine died. Anonymous

No, it wouldn't. A person does not have to be alive to inspire something; look at the numerous Elvis impersonators out there. The Divine inspiration is certainly better sourced than the Medusa one; find a source and add it to the Ursula page. Interrobamf 06:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Divine being the inspiration for her design is already on both pages. I meant that no one has found a source to say Divine was in talks to voice the character. I've heard it mentioned by a few people, but like I said until there is an actual source it can not be added to the pages. There are photos of Divine actually visiting the Disney Animation Department during production of the Little Mermaid because her and Howard Ashman were close friends, and before dying she was supposed to play the mother-in-law on Married...with Children. I mean, just on a hunch, I really don't think Divine was in talks to voice Ursula. Glen Milstead died in 1988, and the film was released in 1989 so it just seems like he would have been able to do some voice work had it been true. Anonymous

You don't seriously believe that a Disney character is inspired by just one other character? I'll use Madame Medusa as an example, who was inspired by several other characters and people. I know that part of Ursula was inspired by Divine, especially body-wise, but her personality is a different story and Madame Medusa may be not as well known know, but at the time of The Little Mermaid's release, The Rescuers had seen a recent theatrical run and it had also been the last significant success until The Little Mermaid, so, no doubt, the makers of The Little Mermaid wished to imitate it in some ways. The facial-design, the monstruous, identical pets and the psychotic laugh are undeniable similarities and these add to the fact that Ursula was largely inspired by Madame Medusa and as soon as I gather time, the fact will be sourced and the part of the article will be added and will stay there. T.W. 22:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A fansite doesn't count, by the way. We need it from Disney or the people that worked on it, quotes, reports, not some unrelated guy's guesses. You also seem a mite obsessed over getting your POV represented in a cartoon character's article. Interrobamf 22:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that I founded this article myself. Also, the rules don't say that the information has to come from official sources, but reliable sources and I've got plenty of those, but not as much time anymore. About obsession, you're the one who seems obsessed with keeping the information from the article and were the only one to object to its inclusion, we've had several people re-add the information, showing only that they too believe or know the information to be true, or else it is unlikely that they would have bothered to re-add it. T.W. 23:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever articles you created doesn't preclude you from breaking Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the only two people who endorse this information are you and an anon who might as well be you. An admin has agreed with me, as well as an anon. On the subject of reliable sources, they aren't reliable if they don't base their content on official information. Haphazard guesses don't get less haphazard if they're on some fansite. Interrobamf 23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Pointing out that I founded this article was a statement in answer to yours about my "obsession" with it, not an excuse to supposedly break the rules. Yes, that other anon is me because I have nothing better to do with my time than talk to myself, right? Anyways, official information is hardly part of Wikipedia, because official information isn't always available or as "official" as it might claim to be and second, like I've getting quite sick of stating, the information repeatedly placed on the article by more than one person is not one that will see "official" sources, why? Because, like I've already stated, part of it was perspective and point of view and like I'm also sick of stating, this kind of information has made its unsourced way into many highly edited and priced articles, we've contacted Wikipedia a few weeks ago, we got the approval, however, to please you I haven't yet found a reliable source and it is proving almost impossible to find out, why? I've stated why above. Won't you please take on your Wikipedia nobility elsewhere and "correct" the thousands and thousands of articles with suggestive information? I don't see why you have to constantly make appearances here. Still, I'll try to find you a freaking source, so you can shut your trap once and for all, for you're the only one who's in need of an unneeded source. Next time you give me more of your little policy lectures, source them or I won't listen to it, how's that, Mr./Mrs.Thenightisn'tdarkuntilyousourceit. Honestly, I'm fed up with you. T.W. 00:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Sources? You mean, unlike WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V? The presence of other violations doesn't dispute the fact that you're violating policy. Also, you constantly say that you've gotten "approval", but you've yet to prove that you've received such approval. If you can't form an actual argument against clear policy beyond "But other kids do it too!" and weak insults, then please don't bother debating. Interrobamf 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously sarcasm is still a foreign language to you and no, adult-written articles have used the same sort of statement, I don't mean vandalism-like gibberish without origin or sense and your opinion on my insults doesn't matter to me, not unless you give me source. I don't remember "constantly claiming" anything, I believe that was my first time bringing up the subject, could you source for me? I don't tend to memorize my every discussion. T.W. 00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the point in saying the two characters have similarities? It's of no merrit what so ever. Also why do you flip-flop from similarties to saying the Ursula was directly based upon Madame Medusa. And of course, one second she's physically based upon her, and the next only her attitude and mannerisms are (by the way, if you're old enough go out to Blockbuster and rent a copy of Pink Flamingos and Female Trouble). I mean, wow, they both sit at a mirror, and both have a set of pets based upon predatory animals. Fact is, Disney has, and probably will always include a sidekick with the various villans, with the exception of the Wicked Queen from Snow White. The prior statement could just be a good old fashioned coincidence. The problem that I have with this is that it's all blatantly against the Wikipedia Policies. In my opinion this entire article is written in a way that goes against the Wikipedia Policies; it's not encyclopedic at all instead it's narrative. Example: Madame Medusa is a BLACK HEARTED Disney Villian. The statement about the lizard from the sequel to this film is another thing I would look into; I don't actually believe the writers intended to combine the two gators. If I remember right the lizard from the sequel was used for alot of slapstick humor and not really intimidating like the gators. I recommend this entire article be cleaned up, and that until the actual sources are down everything that relates this character to another Disney villian be erased. Oh and by the way; Internet Movie Database is not a reliable source. Anonymous

Surely many Disney characters share similarities, but this one has been stated to be a case in which the similiraties are not coincidential. Second, the use of the word "black hearted" I brought from the official Madame page, and there's no denying the character is evil as evil can be. Third, the makers of the sequel, which included a few that worked on the original film stated taking a lot of elements from the first to insure appeal, such as the bird Wilbur being almost exactly the same as Orville, personality and look-wise, same with Joanna the lizard, I don't know about Roscoe and Desoto, I didn't add that. The Internet Movie Database may not be the best or most reliable source, but it's a widely accepted one. T.W. 04:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
First, this is going to be really mean but, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE FOR THE LAST TWO MONTHS THAT THE SIMILARITIES ARE NOT COINCIDENTAL! Second; Wikipedia Policy also states that you can not use direct wording from a reference. Disney can do this b/c that is there website, but Wikipedia aims to be as encyclopedic as possible which means it should state something along the lines of: "Madame Medusa is the main villian in the classic Disney film..." Third; you have to put the source you got this from on the refrence page. I really don't want to sound mean, but these are the rules and you have to follow them. Anonymous
No need to shout. Re-using two words isn't direct wording. Third, the edit button is available to you, too, so if you have something to add or change, then you can go ahead and do it and stop criticizing. This is getting a bit ridiculous. I haven't pushed the subject about the Connections section for weeks and no one is trying to re-insert it without the needed sources, so why do you constantly keep telling me I need to find sources? I will find them and THEN I will re-add the information, but until then, just forget about it. T.W. 15:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think there could be so much arguing and fighting over a subject that isn't as obscure as the statements said. It is a pretty well known fact and often discussed in several message boards by fans of both films, including IMDb. As a matter of fact, only today in The Rescuers board there I ran into this user commenting on how a friend of her told her how Ursula had been inspired by Madame Medusa, and surely she didn't get that information here. The Disney Archives page for Ursula makes a slight reference to it, too although facially similar to Madame Medusa and finally, it was stated in several original documentaries from the time in which both films were theatrically released and re-released in 1989 and this kind of source is not an easy one to write down. 67.174.4.138 04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I hunted the page down, it was dated in late October. So how could you know her friend did not get that information when it was posted here. Also I ran across a site that gets it's information from wikipedia and it still had the Madame Medusa/Ursula Connection. It is very possible they based this upon the information Taran presented as factual; which is exactly why there has to be a source for these things. Just because Disney notices they are "facially similar" it is not the same as acknowledging that one is directly or indirectly based upon the other. It's just fucking annoying that you jump. Like I said one second she's visually based upon Madame Medusa; then I prove that wrong with the Divine inspiration, which is said planely by both one of the animators who worked on her, and Divines long time friend John Waters on the second disk. Then you say her attitude is based upon her; then it's just similarities. Yet on the imDb page you replied that yes Ursula is based upon Madame Medusa: "it used to be on Wikipedia, but they deleted it for some reason. You can still see it on the history page though : ). Tarran Wanderer". If you want I can find the exact quote tomorrow, and even contact the person to find out where there friend got this information. Also, just a little note to something I didn't notice earlier. If you know so much about animation; you would know it's physically impossible (especially for the late 80's) that animators would have been able to do anything a few months before the films release; or at least basing an entire character after another. So why the hell do you keep saying the Rescuers enjoyed a rerelease a few months prior too. Big fuckin deal. I don't care about Disney, let alone a single fuckin character from a motherfucking movie. But it just irks me that someone who was born maybe either a little after, or just a few months prior til a films release claims to know all this shit; how the fuck could you have seen documentaries made during the "films release and rerelease" you're 17. You couldn't even talk during the release and rerelease. And once again; MY FUCK JUST B/C ONE WAS RERELEASED A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THE OTHER WAS ACTUALLY RELEASED DOESN'T MEAN SHIT! Fact is that Disney had done at least five other animated pictures between Mermaid and Rescuers, alot of films were rereleased in this period b/c it was before vcrs had become a household product. Just give it up, there's such a heated debate over it that you'll need to find an actual web page, or an easily accessible book to support your claim and I don't think you will. I think if the folks at disney are willing to admit they based a character off a 300 lb flaming queer (I'm allowed to say it) drag queen who ate dog shit, then they'd admit that they based a character off another one from their archives. Anonymous
That's just one example of many. A great number of others were discussed years before this article was even in existance. I recommend some soap for that mouth, or don't bother sharing your opinions if anger management is an issue with you, because the rest of us are expressing our views and statements without losing our grip, I recommend you do the same, or your "argument", if you have one may not even be taken into consideration. For the record, I don't remember having expressed my age, I'm 39, for your information, get your people straight before you insult them. By the way you type and express yourself, you can't be past 15.
I agree with Taran, why on earth are you pushing your (childish) point so hard? At the moment, no one is trying to bring the Connections section back, so what's your point? Also, if you don't care about the subject, then please refrain from making or suggesting changes, for you're unlikely to even know much about the subject. Moving on, I recommend we make an appearance section somewhere, describing the physical appearance of the character. 67.174.4.138 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand who or what he/she is yelling about. It's probably just Interrobamf in disguise. T.W. 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I use grammar. I also have nothing to gain from logging out; unlike you, I didn't make the argument that "many" people are in support of this section. 129.89.191.226 23:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As you can see, I'm not "Anonymous". Interrobamf 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That didn't stop you from trying to accuse me of the same thing. What do I have to earn from pushing my point? Nothing.T.W. 23:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have my people straight. It is YOUR poor gramar skills that give you away as being one and the same. Just b/c someone doesn't care about something does not mean they do not know about it. For the record (if you're going to masquerade as someone else, don't use this every other sentence, has it is a dead give away); I became aware of what I know through writing a paper in my college media class that discussed the changes of Disney's Animated Villianesses throughout the companies history. It was assigned, and I was forced to not only watch hours of Disney dribble but also read about the "magic" behind it. The connections are still scattered throughout the article; ex: Flotsam and Jetsam being based upon Bruno and Nero. I'll admit I was harsh, and that my grammar was not up to par. But hey it was late. I will not apologize for using fuck b/c people say fuck in frustration and not *bleep*. On an unrelated note I find it very hard to respect you; I wanted to see if you had actually went to the Rescuers discussion page and ask someone to back you up. In the long run I did find an interesting little quote about stereotypes "not being a bad thing". Your obsession with Disney is a little unsettling; even the notion that Disney would do a bad thing upsets you. Let me break the "magic" for you; Disney is a corporation whose power is as unsettling as your devotion. Jump over to the Air Pirates or Disney Land Ory page to read how Disney, a symbol of America and its "values", got two works of art banned by the Supreme Court on the ground that animated characters share the same rights as living, breathing people. Oh and those two tidbits I picked up in my modern arts class. Although I can't site it; I also know Disney threatened fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, with "drastic action", in a nice little letter. That was told to me by a friend who worked with her way back when. Anonymous

Oh, yes, you should talk about poor grammar skills. What on earth is this kid ranting about? Please, continue your little immature tantrum elsewhere and don't let personal conflict interfere with articles.
Positive stereotyping isn't necessarily a bad thing, but actually part of culture. 67.174.4.138 04:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Dude, stop. The unsourced material is not going back in without a source. That satisfies me. There's no need to continue this discussion, especially to the point of incomprehensible ranting. Interrobamf 04:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
And no one here is trying to bring back that certain material without the source. I don't know who this individual here is, now he's ranting on and on about his personal dislike towards T.W. and talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the subject and accusing me of being Taran, too; like an "Anonymous" here has a right to talk. Taran's going to have a good laugh at this. 67.174.4.138 04:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
A good laugh indeed, what's up with this guy? Telling me about his college life as if I give damn about it and telling me what Disney is, as if I needed him to tell me. Honestly, I really don't think personal matters should get in the way of research and article-writing, so I'll just ignore you completely, besides I don't make it a habit to chat with pre-teens. Watch your language, though, you might see yourself banned pretty soon if you carry on like that. T.W. 14:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Snoops

It's the second time I see the character's name changed to "Dr. Snoops", why would anyone insist on changing the name when it's, without a doubt, Mr. Snoops? Check the film, check any review, check the Internet Movie Database, the character's name is Mr. Snoops and please let it stay that way. Lyzoth 01:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I've changed the image for Madame Medusa three times already because I'm never happy with the way it looks after a while. Does anyone here know of a picture of her in its full glory? I don't want a direct screenshot from the DVD, because the film's print is terrible in it and I want Madame to look vivid and colorful like she's meant to look.--Lyzoth 16:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combining/separating articles

If anyone feels the sections on Mr. Snoops, Brutus and Nero deserve to have their own articles, please go ahead and do so, or let me know and I'll take care of it myself. I've seen articles for other Disney characters which offer much less information and yet are on their own, but I wasn't sure as to what people would prefer. --Lyzoth 21:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brutus and Nero are Crocodiles?

Judging from the thick body and snouts, Brutus and Nero seem more like Alligators as opposed to Crocodiles.

They are, but someone's gone through all of the The Rescuers-related boards changing that. 67.174.4.138 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)