Talk:Rabbit-Proof Fence

Potential refs

Moved from EL section

• Phil Noyce Interview
• Bolt on Stolen Generation
• Villella, Fiona A. (2002) "Long road home: Phillip Noyce's Rabbit-Proof Fence" in Senses of Cinema March 2002 Accessed: 27 July 2007
• "A rabbit-proof fence full of holes", The Australian, 11 March 2002. Critique by Peter Howson (Minister for Aboriginal affairs in 1971 and 1972) and Des Moore (director of the Institute for Private Enterprise)
• Rabbit Proof Fence (2002) Reviewed by Jamie Russell, 16 October 2002 BBC Film Review (Retrieved 28 July 2007)
• Rabbit Proof Fence, Review by Luke Buckmaster In Film Australia (Retrieved 28 July 2007)

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bit of sloppy coding

In "Reception," I see "}}verify credibility}}". I don't know how to fix it, but someone ought to. Thanks.

Fyi- someone has edited the description of this movie to be the description of a Star Wars film. That should be fixed, but I'm new that this and I'm not sure how to do it. I wanted to bring it to someone's attention. -- Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Molly's daughters

The plot section says Molly also tells us of her own two daughters and that the three of them were taken from Jigalong back to Moore River. Is it the opposite maybe? Two of three rather than three of two? Fomalhaut76 (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Three = Molly + 2 daughters. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Strange issue down in the references section of the page.

Almost all of the references are displaying the message 'Time allocated for running scripts has expired'. I have no idea what this means, but I have tested the page in another browser and on my mobiles internet and have found the same issue. An image of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.5.153 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it had to do with the {{rotten-tomatoes}} and {{metacritic film}} templates. I removed them and then restored them, which appears to have fixed the issue. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe it was not the templates themselves. Editing the page alone might have resolved the matter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The Keith Windshuttle Controversy

I had added the Windshuttle rebute to the film, and thank User:Skyring for defending it. I am certainly not Windshuttle, and do not know the real truth. I do know that the film itself eked political correctness, while Windshuttle's work seems sombre and researched.

Further contributions to this topic would be most welcome. But the controversy has to be acknowledged. I would suggest that anybody contributing to this needs at least to read the referenced book by Pilkington. Tuntable (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I note a recent edit intended to "tone down" Windschuttle's criticism. We use a Neutral Point of View here, and that does not mean adopting some pre-digested middle ground, but in giving all well-held views their place, allowing the reader to check the sources and make up their own minds. Looking at Windschuttle's article, he does not "argue" anything. He makes direct statements. He gives his sources. It is clear that the makers of the film–as noted in the credits–based their work on a true story, but took considerable creative licence for the purpose of entertainment. Some scenes are pure fiction, such as the supposed capture of three children who did not want to be captured by a lone man. Apparently every time he caught one of these evasive creatures, the act of placing them in an unlocked car while he sweated off to get the next one served to render them immobile and incapable of simply opening the door and running away in the other direction. --Pete (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and refined the Windshuttle section for further accuracy, removing an inaccurate sentence (neither Windshuttle nor Pilkington argue that the girls' removal was voluntary), giving more details about Windshuttle's arguments, and adding information about academics who have criticized Windshuttle's work. (23/4/17)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rabbit-Proof Fence (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070528002203/http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/awardsevents/awards/Queensland_Premiers_Literary_awards/ to http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/awardsevents/awards/Queensland_Premiers_Literary_awards/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813181401/http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/awardsevents/awards/Queensland_Premiers_Literary_awards/Past_Winners/ to http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/awardsevents/awards/Queensland_Premiers_Literary_awards/Past_Winners/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Rabbit-Proof Fence (film) → Rabbit-Proof Fence – Title formatting distinguishes the film from similar article titles – WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:ITALICTITLE. No disambiguator is needed. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 00:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Sangdeboeuf: Rabbit-Proof Fence is a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Two of the four page names there are not titles or proper names, and so are not capitalized as Rabbit-Proof Fence. I've moved the DAB page to Rabbit-proof fence (disambiguation). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - As the actual fence is not entitled "Rabbit-Proof fence" I don't see this as an issue._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Zxcvbnm, and because the capitalization provides sufficient disambiguation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISE. There's no conflict with any other title. Station1 (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. As long as the main title header for the fence retains the form, Rabbit-proof fence, it would be insufficiently disambiguated from the film, Rabbit-Proof Fence, thus indicating that the film's title needed to retain its form with a parenthetical qualifier, Rabbit-Proof Fence (film). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:DIFFCAPS indicates otherwise. This looks like a classic Red meat vs. Red Meat distinction to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and each example presents its own specialized circumstances. The Red meat/Red Meat distinction was WP:RM tested six years ago, in February 2012, at Talk:Red Meat#Move?, with the nominator arguing for the addition of a parenthetical qualifier and three !voters arguing against. After six years, it is also overdue for another RM with, hopefully, more extensive participation. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I see that the three opposing !votes all referred to our article titling policy, which states that small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane vs. Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey, etc. I'm not sure what special circumstances exist in this case and not those others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
        • A number of recent requested moves concerned whether same-titled main headers, which are differentiated solely through upper/lower case letters, accents, diacritics, exclamation points, question marks or commas, need parenthetical qualifiers to be disambiguated from each other. Each case presented the opportunity for differing interpretations. A nomination positing that the comma in Everything Was Beautiful, and Nothing Hurt was sufficient to disambiguate thus named Moby album from the Breakfast with Amy album Everything Was Beautiful and Nothing Hurt, drew three Oppose votes and was withdrawn at Talk:Everything Was Beautiful, and Nothing Hurt (Moby album)#Requested move 1 January 2018. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not sufficiently different. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, with a common name such as this the upper-casing isn't enough of a diff. The other cases the nominator mentions are different. One contains a '!', another the full upper-casing, and the third the words run together as one. In this case it's the same spelling, the film was named for the fence, and the fence is an understood and common term in Australia and elsewhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I would argue that the term is also commonly understood to refer to the film, especially outside Australia. For an even more common phrase, our titling policy gives, as the first example of typographic disambiguation, Red meat and Red Meat, which are identical except for one upper-case letter (and italics, which are not part of the link syntax). So I don't understand the objection based on the same spelling of the titles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Randy Kryn. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.