Talk:Fictitious persons disclaimer

All persons ... fictitcious disclaimer

The title has a misspelling and is clunky. That aside, though, it's still just not notable as a stand-alone article. -Cdc 06:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Mikkalai 06:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless because no one will ever type in "All persons ... fictitcious disclaimer". Gamaliel 06:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's not the criterion. People can get to pages through a link. Charles Matthews

? You're saying that you think someone will link with this misspelled term? I don't get the objection. Geogre 20:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is the problem with deletionism... the article can be moved, so a bad title in and of itself should not be a reason to delete. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:06, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Merge contents to disclaimer. No redirect. jni 08:32, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Can't merge without redirect, can't redirect this. Not informative in the slightest and Anglophone-centric. The British and US disclaimers differ, and other nations will vary more. Geogre 14:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  Er... why couldn't you redirect this... It's been redirected, and I fixed the double redirect. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:02, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. If you want to know something about discliamers you would search for "disclaimer" and not a spefic disclaimer phrase since there are loads of way to write it. Jeltz 16:11, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful stub which is growing and should grow more, for example, some examples from various countries would help. Spelling has been fixed. Andrewa 17:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Currently on DYK. Spelling error corrected. No longer stub. And it is a real disclaimer.--ZayZayEM 01:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. People will use the exact phrase to find out about disclaimers? I don't think so. --Calton 01:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - an interesting topic, and there are way too many disclaimers around to get into them all on disclaimer. Samaritan 06:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merged from: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/All persons ficticious disclaimer

• Delete Fictishis is speled "fictitous" --Wetman
• Keep (but I'm biased) - Nowhere on the page is the word spelled 'fictishis'; as for forgetting the second 't'; I just moved the page. The article is (at least IMO) an entirely valid topic, and while incomplete it hasn't done anything warranting deletion. -Litefantastic 17:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't see any reason why it needs deleting. Acheron 00:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - This article just needs a little attention, but the topic is valid. Servais 00:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep This page has done nothing worthy of being deleted. Besides,I don't see why a page should be deleted when the person supporting this deletion can't spell fictitious or spelled correctly.
• Keep Wikipedia is not paper. --Fermatprime 00:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Valid article - needs expanding. - Zik-Zak 00:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Perfectly valid page, could be more interesting with a few real-life examples eg court cases in various countries.--Orelstrigo 00:59, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Have added the law case from Britain in 1910 which I suspect inspired it. Dbiv 01:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Lost/widowed VfD. Keep. Cool Hand Luke 01:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, a valid topic. But a list of works which feature the "All persons...fictitious disclaimer in some form"? Come on, there's thousands of them! --Kpalion 01:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, Article is fine, why delete? --Ratiocinate 02:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, Good idea for an article, but needs cleanup. --Mfecane
• Keep. Perfectly fine. Binadot
• Keep. -Sean Curtin 03:19, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. No good reason given to delete it. -James Fee
• Keep Even if it does need tweaking, renaming, or revamping to be less English-centric, it's definitely worthy of inclusion. Lacrimosus 04:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Misspelled nonsense. --Improv 04:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but rename - it is a terrible title - Drstuey 04:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • I know. After I came up with amerime, they got mad at me for making up new words and coining phrases. So, for things like this, I try to make the name as reasonable as possible. Sometimes, I even succeed. -Litefantastic 23:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. --Gary D 04:51, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Fixed double redirect, keep in current form. Definately encyclopedic. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:02, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Although it does need to be changed to a better title (I'm not sure what...) --L33tminion | (talk) 05:05, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Intrigue 23:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A phenomenon so ubiquitous and quirky most definitely deserves an entry. And frankly, the very idea of wanting to delete a wiki page (by definition one of the most easily-edited things in the world) because of a few spelling errors strikes me as just plain bizaare. --Prio 23:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Updated

I added the history behind the disclaimer. I can't believe it wasn't on this page! -User:smh219 Jan 25, 2006

Fair use rationale for Image:South Park disclaimer.jpg

Image:South Park disclaimer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Z

I think this article warrants a mention of Costa Gravas' landmark political film Z, as it is famous for featuring a notable inversion of this disclaimer (translated from the French): "Any resemblance to real events, to persons living or dead, is not accidental. It is DELIBERATE"Isaac Benaron (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Conter examples

Maybe it would be interesting to add, for contrast, the opening of "The Gulag Archipelago": "In this book there are no fictitious persons, nor fictitious events. People and places are named with their own names. If they are identified by initials instead of names, it is for personal considera- tions. If they are not named at all, it is only because human memory has failed to preserve their names. But it all took place just as it is here described." --JorgeGT (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

South Park "impersonated ... poorly" line removed

In the toomuchtrivia-like list of examples of parodies of the disclaimer, the South Park disclaimer is cited, which says that all voice actors "are impersonated ... poorly." I removed it. That particular sentence is not part of the all-persons-fictitious disclaimer; it is present in order to reduce the chance that they'll be sued, not for libel, but for violation of publicity rights. See Tom Waits#Lawsuits for more examples. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Opposite - All persons changed disclaimer?

I was actually looking for the opposite - although based on fact, details have been changed to protect people's identities. Is there a common form of that disclaimer? Natebailey (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

shoehorned image

This is a user-created mockup of a disclaimer. Not only is it unrealistic, it is unsourced (meaning is user-created vs coming from any reliable source). In addition, an image with text is redundant as the message is just to the left in the article. The image serves no informative purpose. Also see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_entering_textual_information_as_images.

Not just movies

The article ia almost entirely about the disclaimer in movies, yet it is equally common in novels, which therefore deserve equal space. The standard boilerplate is similar to the version described in the article's lead. One of Arthur C. Clarke's novels includes a disclaimer that all the characters are fictitious "except the giant grouper in Chapter Six" (or some such wording). A British mystery novel that I read years ago includes a disclaimer to the effect that all the characters "are placenamed". --76.69.45.64 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As an example of how this sort of claim can be nonsense, I saw it the start of Leon Uris's novel QB VII, which is quite obviously based on Uris's own libel case. It also appears at the start of Carry on Dick, although it is mostly fictional, Dick Turpin is a historical figure. PatGallacher (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Earliest Mention

this article, under 'Origins' claims that the first use was in 1932 as a result of a lawsuit.

I recently watched the 1927 Hitchcock film 'The Lodger' which has one of these disclaimers.

I'm not sure when these originated, but they could not have begun in 1932, since the film predates that lawsuit by five years Dathon (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)