Talk:The Cowboys

John Wayne killed

Why exactly do we need to be told, at the very beginning of the article, that John Wayne is killed in this movie? The comment has no citation and does nothing but ruin the ending for anybody who is about to watch the movie. It should be placed in a section below the summary - or maybe even in it. But there's no need for it at the top. I just wanted to take a look at the top of the article before watching the film, and - as a result of a doing that - I spent the whole movie knowing that John Wayne was going to be killed. This needs to be removed or moved somewhere else. - 03:47, 24 June 2020.

This point has nothing to do whatsoever with an encyclopedia article. It would have validity only in an entertainment magazine. "Ruin the ending for anybody who is about to watch the movie" is irrelevant here. The content or encyclopedia articles is dictated by rubrics established by the publication. Here at Wikipedia, as at other encyclopedias, content is ordered by a "manual of style" or "m.o.s.," at Wikipedia WP:MOS. The particular section relevant here is WP:MOSLEAD. Among many other points, the article states that "It [the lead] gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The questions of citation and relevant content are also addressed.

However, "I just wanted to take a look at the top of the article before watching the film" is irrelevant to the article and unfortunately to this Talk page as well. A personal preference does not determine what should be in an article or where. JW's early death is a significant element of the film and one that was controversial as well, both of which qualify it for the lead.Sensei48 (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how that fact (which doesn't happen early in the movie, by the way) is a part of the "basics in a nutshell". But, hey, I understand you're the guy who make the decisions, so I won't argue that point. But I will ask - Doesn't Wikipedia require citations? Where's the citation for this? You say it is "controversial". According to who? According to what? And the guy who wrote it doesn't even say it's controversial. He just says it's something that happened in the movie. Shouldn't that be in the Summary? I would think that's where critical story elements should go. Not in the section with "basics in a nutshell". But, again, I'm going into an argument that's pointless, I suppose. So instead - why do you have a paragraph in this article that has no citation? I'm not going to take the time to find exactly which Wikipedia rule that violates - but I know it violates one of them. - 03:47, 26 June 2020.

Vivaldi

what is the name of the Vivaldi song played by the guitar in the movie? - 03:45, 27 May 2007 65.121.131.2

The Largo movement from the Lute concerto in D major, RV 93 - Best O Fortuna (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

needs editing

The narrative summary is excessive, and there's a lot of uncited material/WP:OR that needs to go. DavidOaks (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the mentions about the Ruby River, near where it meets the Beaverhead River, in the mid 1870s, and the railhead at Belle Fourche, South Dakota? I think geographical mentions should stay. They are mentioned in the film. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It was my judgment, according to WP:Undue, but I'm not the Pope and don't claim infallibility. If it was a bad delete, please, by all means, restore! Best, DavidOaks (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings again -- you left the following message on my talk page; discussions of articles are probably best carried-out on the article's talkpage (that is, here) rather than on userpages: : Huh? WP:UNDUE has to do with Point-of-View versus Neutral POV. The mentions of the Ruby River, near where it meets the Beaverhead River, in the mid 1870s, and the rail-head at Belle Fourche, South Dakota are: 1) in the book by William Dale Jennings; 2) in the script written by Irving Ravetch, Harriet Frank, Jr., and Jennings; and 3) in the film directed by Mark Rydell and produced and released by Warner Bros. There is no POV/NPOV about it. It is just the fact of the way it is. I don't understand your application of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In response, "undue weight" has to do with undue weight -- it's not restricted to POV issues. In an article on a film, all kinds of details can be left out of a summary without harming the reader's general understanding of the plot; there's no real reason to reproduce the geography in which it takes place, any more than we need to re-narrate the cook's story about his father. If you are of a different view about a particular detail, go ahead and put it back; the key thing is that the summary not become excessive (always a judgment call, of course; some people will settle for nothing less than a full script, others will tolerate nothing more than a blurb suitable for the poster). DavidOaks (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(for instance, I'd have thought this[1] was a factoid worth retaining, but somebody else has a different idea, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to rv)DavidOaks (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, you wrote on my talkpage -- this is really the place to have these discussions, so that others can participate: "The facts of the Ruby River being mentioned in the book, the script, and the film, are just that FACTS, not any viewpoint what-so-ever. There is no POV in the facts, they are neutral. Anybody who watches the film or takes the time to read the book can not say that the Ruby River and Belle Fourche are NOT mentioned in them. I respectfully request that you go and re-read WP:UNDUE again, and then come up with some other reason why my contribution don't belong. That entire section is filled with the words "views", "viewpoint", "fringe theories", etc., The fact is that they are mentioned in the book and the film, there is no "weight" here, facts are facts. It was not Original Research, it was in the book and film, it is easily verifiable, just read the book or watch the film (or read the script). How can I be in the "minority" if I got it straight from the horses-mouth? Guess I will go bang my head against a brick wall now. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)"

Now, friend, given your edit summary ("Guess I will go bang my head against a brick wall now") I'm suspecting you have trouble reading carefully -- I have told you several times, and quite pleasantly, I thought, that if you feel strongly about this matter, you should go ahead. Similarly I told you before to take your discussions here; finally, you seem as well to have missed this part of WP:Undue: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" Sorry friend, I just think there are some issues of manners here. The fact that something is true is not a warrant for including it. If you think the reader will have difficulty grasping the plot without a firm conception of the ride's beginning at Beaverhead River and ending at Belle Fourche, include it. Be prepared for others to see it differently. Adios. DavidOaks (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And revert it. This extremely minor geographic/historical detail is in no way germane to the understanding of the film. The connection between The Cowboys and Belle Fourche may have a place in the article on the latter, but it is not a significant element in understanding what is notable about the former. Sensei48 (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)