Talk:Hey There, It's Yogi Bear!

Animation: American / Hanna-Barbera Mid‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Hanna-Barbera work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

First what film?

Removing the following excerpt:

and the first such film based on a television program

because what exactly "such" refers to is unclear. For instance, this film definitely wasn't first theatrical feature based on a TV show; cf. Dragnet or The Quatermass Xperiment. If the intended meaning was "first animated theatrical feature" (which I suspect is the case given the title of the referenced source), someone please put that part back but rewrite it first.

(With apologies to the editor who reverted the very same change when I made it last week. I didn't want to try anything behind your back. But you didn't reply to my message on my talk page, and I am forbidden to edit yours.) 87.206.148.78 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have revert this again. if you feel it isn't clear, then its fine to question but not to just remove completely. This particularly book is available completely online, so checking for clarity is very easy. Checking it now. And checked...the source says specifically "first feature-length theatrical release based on a television property."[1] I have edited the lead to clarify this. If you disagree, you will need to find other reliable sources to dispute it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, if the information is, to the best of my knowledge, false, it's acceptable to remove it first and ask questions later? Jerry Beck is as prone to mistake or misprint as anyone, and I linked to two articles that directly contradict his claim above. Have you looked at them? The latter one in particular describes in detail a 1955 film's genesis and differences from the TV original, and is rather heavily sourced, too. 87.206.148.78 (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. The best of your knowledge, quite frankly, means nothing. You are not a verifiable expert. You are simply an editor who has an opinion. We work on verifiability, not always necessarily "truth." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V hardly applies here; it says that verifiability rather than truth should be a threshold for inclusion of an information, not that a patently false one should be left alone just because there is a source claiming it's true. (If anything, this policy actually appears to support my case. See: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.")

Now could you please address the issue at hand, namely how does The Quatermass Xperiment article (and its sources) not contradictYogi Bear movie being first TV-to-film adaptation? 87.206.148.78 (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the burden of evidence lies solely with YOU as you are the one who is claiming that a reliable source is incorrect. Other Wikipedia articles are NOT reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me rephrase, then:

Now could you please address the issue at hand, namely how does THE EXISTENCE of The Quatermass Xperiment movie in 1955 not contradict Yogi Bear movie from 1964 being first TV-to-film adaptation? 87.206.148.78 (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its British, not American, and the Quartermass Xperiment page does not say the movie was released theatrically. Appears to be a made-for-TV film. Either way, doesn't matter. Unless you have an actual reliable source that directly contradicts what this article states, the information stays.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its British, not American,

How does it matter?

and the Quartermass Xperiment page does not say the movie was released theatrically.

It does.

Unless you have an actual reliable source that directly contradicts what this article states,

If you bothered to read up to the point where the theatrical release is discussed, you'd see the sources.

I am sorry, but at this point I don't think I can assume your good faith anymore. I mean, look at this from my point of view. You revert my edit leaving a message that I should have explained my reasons in the edit summary --- which I already had. I try to restart discussion with you on my talk page (just as you encourage to do on yours) --- which you ignore. Five days later, I edit again, this time with an adnotation on a discussion page --- and it takes you four back-and-forth replies to actually read one of the two articles I brought up as possible counterexamples --- and yet still miss the crucial info. Not to mention how you bring up a Wikipedia policy only to explicitly condradict it when I quote the part of it you don't like.

In the interest of Wikipedia not containing falsehoods I am removing the blatantly incorrect half of the sentence again. If you truly believe that Jerry Beck (an animation historian, in a book about animated movies) or his editor omitting a word "animated" by mistake is less probable than Wikipedia editors, IMDB users, screenonline, snopes, and assorted printed sources all being part of a conspiracy who pretend there were at least two theatrical TV adaptations made in the 1950s, by all means put it back again. I give up. 87.206.148.78 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue removing sourced data, you will be blocked for vandalism. If you want to find a supplementary reliable source that says that it was the first "animated" theatrical film based on a television series or to otherwise support, do it and update accordingly. But do not continue removing sourced content, period. And, BTW, IMDB is not a reliable source for anything. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had found source proving that it was the first "animated" theatrical film based on a television series, that's what I would have written in the article to begin with. I didn't. What I had found is proof that there were non-animated theatrical films based on television series before Hey There, It's Yogi Bear!, and acted accordingly. How is that vandalism? 87.206.148.78 (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced content because you disagree with it is vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say so? I don't see it mentioned in Wikipedia:Vandalism. 87.206.148.78 (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Addition/Replacement/Removal" - bad faith removal of content (you don't like the source and questioned that it may be missing a single word, then kept removing despite being warned not to). Anyway, I was able to find a source to supplement (took all of 5 minutes in a Google news search), so hopefully you are now satisfied with the clarification? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. How the heck do you arrive at a conclusion that I don't like the source? (I visit Beck's Cartoonbrew at least once a week; I even briefly considered asking himself for clarification there, but was afraid you'd call it Original Research.)

2. Even if I hated it, this does not make the removal bad-faith. Removing statement of fact (rather than opinion) which I think is untrue is clearly in no way intended to harm Wikipedia's integrity. Ergo, good faith. My attitude towards the source (or even whether any source is cited at all) doesn't come into this.

3. Repeating the offense also doesn't. Stubbornness is explicitly not a vandalism as per WP:VANDAL.

4. I honestly don't see how your new-found source made you chage your mind.

5. But I am glad it did, because it improved the article. Thank you.

87.206.148.78 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source specifically notes it being the first animation film versus just theatrical. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]