Talk:Behind Two Guns

Character names

The character names in the original article are incorrect. The opening credits of the film itself indicate the correct cast list (which obviously differs from some secondary sources). I'm not sure why AFI is wrong - perhaps they used AI or some other digital process to scan, but for whatever reason, the "reliable" secondary source has faulty information. We'll have to reach some kind of consensus on this, but I have a problem with listing wrong information when it comes from opening film credits that can be verified. AFI and other sources are not citing the cast list, and there's no reason to remove them because they certainly are reliable on other information. I have placed a note next to the names accordingly. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No offense, but without providing a reliable source, this amounts to original research. I agree that just because a source is deemed reliable, which AFI is, does not mean it is infallible. However, without cited proof, OR is not allowed.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: With all due respect, that's not original research. This is not synthesizing a conclusion from a primary source - it's a straight up fact from the film's credits. If I was synthesizing a conclusion from a primary source, then yes, that would be considered OR from a primary source and a secondary source would be necessary. But in the case of a verifiable fact from a primary source, as is the case with a cast list in film or television, then that's exactly when a primary source is allowed (see WP:PRIMARY, #3: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.). In addition, credits for film and for television, per the MOS for both projects, are to come from the primary source as credited, unless an alternate name is used, in which case it must be supported by a secondary source. Generally, that's intended to mean the actor's name, but I would suggest that extends to the character as well. If "Peter Pan" were referred to in a reliable source as "Petra", would you use the character's name as given in the book or film, which is verifiable? Or would you defer to the obviously incorrect source? This film is in the public domain and can be verified without difficulty, meeting the standard of WP:PRIMARY #3. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

In answer to your hypothetical, if the only source referred to the character as Petra, and I was only using my own knowledge to change it to Peter, than that would be OR. I'm assuming you watched the film, and that's where you're getting your information, but you do not know if that is an original print of the film, or if it had been edited. But you're right, this is bit of a sticky wicket. I don't really participate over at the film project, but it might be worth asking for opinions over there. If consensus is okay with it, than I certainly am.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to bludgeon this, but I would suggest that there is already plenty of support for this from both the film and television project guidelines and MOS.

My hypothetical was intended to be more rhetorical, but I have to disagree with your position (if the only source referred to the character as Petra, and I was only using my own knowledge to change it to Peter, than that would be OR.) based on WP:PRIMARY #3 ("statements of facts that can be verified"), as well as MOS:FILM (and MOS:TV, which is related and similar). If it is a verifiable fact from the work itself (such as a character name), the primary source is acceptable. A work's credits are generally sourced from the work itself (MOS:FILMCAST) as is its plot synopsis (MOS:FILMPLOT: Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source). The related MOS:TVPLOT summarizes this well: Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, such as its credits, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given. (The Film MOS says this as well if you read the whole plot and cast sections in context; it's just not in one succinct sentence).

Adding to what's been stated already, of the sources in the article, while AFI lists the lead character as "Carter", the biography on Guillermo Calles lists the character as credited ("Cutter")[1].

My solution (which was reverted) is to follow MOS and list as credited and apply an {{efn}} to note the AFI discrepancy. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but one thing to add to clarify my above explanation of this particular issue: In answer to your hypothetical, if the only source referred to the character as Petra, and I was only using my own knowledge to change it to Peter, than that would be OR. Here's another reason that's incorrect. Your answer of "the only source" discounts that the primary source - the work itself - is a valid source, so there are actually two sources, one primary and the other secondary. The use of a primary source is not OR when it is making a verifiable statement of fact. That's what WP:PRIMARY #3 addresses. Such is the case when dealing with films, tv, books, and the like. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

My reply is on your section on my Talk.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Since it's clearly wrong based on the film's actual credits, I reached out to AFI. They have updated their site. ButlerBlog (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)