# Talk:Saving Mr. Banks

As principle filming is confirmed as having commenced,[1] the topic meets our primary notability criteria,[2] and as policy specifcally allows that it "is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced", it has been requested that this article be re-evaluated and considered for return to mainspace under WP:FFEXCEPTIONS.  
The contentions here are that since incubation, the coverage of the topic of Saving Mr. Banks is proving itself enduring and persistent in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period (thus dealing with violations of WP:NOTNEWS) and there is too much verifiable information in an article (whose topic is "discussion about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur") to be reasonably placed anywhere else as no suitable merge or redirect target exists.  Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Article incubation assessment

Does the article establish notability of the subject ?
A. It meets the general notability guideline: 
B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline: 
Is it verifiable?
A. It contains references to sources: 
B. There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. There is no original research: 
Is it neutral?
A. It is a fair representation without bias: 
B. It is written in a non-promotional manner: 
It does not contain unverifiable speculation: 
Pass, Fail or Hold for three months:  passes, graduate to mainspace

99.45.57.226 posted this comment on 16 December 2013 (view all feedback).

I am looking for information on the book that "Saving Mr. Banks" was based on.
Any thoughts?
The film is not derived from a book, hence there would be no information on such a book in the article. It was, however, initially inspired by a documentary which is mention in the first paragraph of the production section.  ∆ nbmatt 23:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
While not based on them per se, the film does acknowledge Mary Poppins, She Wrote: The Life of P.L. Travers by Valerie Lawson and Moose by Robert B. Sherman. Trivialist (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I am surprised there is no mention at all of the New Yorker magazine articles about "Poppins". Although I do not know if the films used them as references, the articles surely must be germane to the subject:
Becoming Mary Poppins
P. L. Travers, Walt Disney, and the making of a myth.
By Caitlin Flanagan
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/19/becoming-mary-poppins
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1962/10/20/mary-poppins  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.173.78 (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 

I've removed these recent additions because they fail to provide any encyclopedic analysis whatsoever. They are simply a list of real-life events that don't attempt to connect to their portrayal of events shown on-screen—therefore they don't prove or disprove anything. In addition, many of these claims are actually incorrect in labeling the film's events as inaccurate for the following reasons;
The film depicts Travers coming to terms with Disney's changes to her story and appreciating the film version of Mary Poppins. In reality, she continued to disapprove of the dilution of the harsher aspects of Mary Poppins' character, felt ambivalent about the music, and so hated the use of animation that she ruled out any further adaptations of the later Mary Poppins novels.

Travers never does fully appreciate Disney's film version in Saving Mr. Banks. This is one of the main conflicts in the film's plot. She disapproves a majority of the character changes, is highly critical of the screenplay, is reluctant to accept the Sherman Brothers' music, and her dislike for the animated sequences is prevalent throughout the film, such as the scene where she leaves the studio without handing over the rights. No inaccuracy.
Disney overruled her objections, citing contract stipulations that he had final say on the finished print.

In the end, Disney gets his version of the film. No inaccuracy there.
At the film's premiere, which she wasn't invited to and had to confront a producer to be allowed to go, Travers reportedly approached Disney and told him that the animated sequence had to go.

In the film, Travers is also not invited to the premiere. Instead, she has to goad Disney and the studio into allowing her to attend. No inaccuracy there either. Disney's rebuttal of Travers' request regarding the animated sequences, is not even brought up in the film in the first place, as the film ends before the event even happens. How can a film be considered inaccurate for something that doesn't take place in the confines of the film's runtime?
Enraged at what she considered shabby treatment at Disney's hands, Travers would never again agree to another Poppins/Disney adaptation.

In the 1964 scenes, Travers admits to her agent that she will never allow any more film adaptations of her novels ever again. Again, no inaccuracy there.
So fervent was Travers' dislike of the Disney adaptation and of the way she felt she had been treated during the production, that when producer Cameron Mackintosh approached her about the stage musical when she was into her 90s, she acquiesced on the condition that no one from the film production were to be directly involved with creating the stage musical.

This has no relevance to the events portrayed in this film and should not even be included at all.
~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 19:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The inaccuracy:
In the movie, Travers is completely aware of every element of the Disney adaptation when she signs over the rights of the book to him. She disapproves of some of the changes to her story, but agrees with Disney that people should see the redemption of the Mr. Banks character on screen, which is something sentimental to her. She’s told by Disney to let go, and let him make the movie he knows people will love, with his changes intact. She relents and agrees. It’s portrayed as a tearful, cathartic moment for her. They’re communicating that this moment is her moving on from the grief and guilt of losing her father, by letting Disney make his Mary Poppins.
What actually happened was that Disney made those story changes without her approval, and that she fought those changes until she lost, because the contract she signed gave Disney final cut of the film. But even then she pursued him to change the movie to something more in line with her original story. “That ship has sailed,” is what Disney told Travers at the premiere.
She was furious that these changes weren’t going to be reserved. This alone is in direct contradiction with the movie, where she’s aware of every change that’s going to be present in the film when she signs over the rights to Disney and gives her blessing to make the movie. Travers hated the Disney movie. She hated it all her life. She fought those changes all the way through production until after the movie was released. You would never get that impression from Saving Mr. Banks. This is an inaccuracy, and it’s the entire backbone of the climax of the movie.
Since the movie spends so much time giving one impression, I feel that it's important to paint the whole picture of what the production was actually like for Travers, including the effect that it had on her afterwards, which is important to illustrate the contradiction. I don’t know where Jedi94 is coming from, but I can tell you that Disney would not like this section included in this article. The Mary Poppins (film) article was pretty much whitewashed as well. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct that the article needs to provide a neutral point of view. The current problem with the added content, however, is that there is no clear distinction or connection being made between the real events and their portrayal in the film. If such inaccuracies were made in the film, the section needs to make that clear with verifiable, objective evidence to support it. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 21:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The current problem with the added content, however, is that there is no clear distinction or connection being made between the real events and their portrayal in the film.
That's not true.
If such inaccuracies were made in the film, the section needs to make that clear with verifiable, objective evidence to support it.
Everything is sourced. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Brief replies will not improve your argument. Please stop reverting my edits without prior discussion or explanation, as I'm attempting to mediate the issue by improving your contributions. My revised version has better sentence fluency and more accurate tertiary sources to back up the inaccuracy claims. Stop adding the information regarding the stage adaptation, as that has no direct relevance to the subject of the film's accuracy. Also, be aware that you are now engaged in an edit-war and are now liable for any further actions. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 22:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
You haven't given me much to work with - and still haven't here. You haven't acknowledged my original explanation in any meaningful way. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't realize that at some point you had done some work on the section instead of deleting it. I've restored some of your edits. However, the section that describes how history contracts the movie's plot belongs below the section which describes the plot. I've moved it back to its original position. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Jedi94, per WP:FILMDIFF, "Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." You need to be able to show why the changes were made or how the changes affected production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry I thought this was based on a book, but still WP:FILMHIST says "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." No explanations are given in the section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. If WP:FILMHIST is saying that a source is needed to explain the movie's inaccuracies, even when both the film's plot and the history are well sourced, then there's nothing I can do. This information will continue to be hidden. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Wait, I'm sorry. The Vulture source, listed #8 in the Inaccuracies section, does exactly what's requires - it compares and contrasts the movie's plot with what actually happened, point by point. The other sources then expand on Travers' dissatisfaction to further illuminate the inaccuracy described.96.228.59.201 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
As I, and now TriiipleThreat, have been saying; the content needs to be put into context in the article, not have it be present in a third-party source and have the reader figure it out themselves. Using the Vulture source (or any of the other source I've provided) as a foundation for writing and expanding the in-context explanation is fine. This is what I was in the midst of working on, when you reverted my edits without providing a reason. The content in the inaccuracies section has either got to be expanded as explained here to justify its encyclopedic inclusion, or removed altogether. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 00:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You disagreed that there was any historical contradiction at all. That's what the meat of this debate has been about. I agree, however, that according to WP:FILMHIST, inaccuracies must be cited by a source specifically pointing out the inaccuracy. But that's been done from the start. I agree, though, that the new version of the section is better with some of your modifications, Jedi94. However, the last paragraph about the stage musical is a fully sourced expansion on the idea that Travers was put off by her experience working with Disney, information that has been justified as relevant to the section by the Vulture source. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting my modifications, although I still feel that the stage adaptation information is just excess material, as Travers' subsequent attitude regarding her experience with Disney is already and adequately underlined in the preceding phrase (Travers vowing to never allow Disney to adapt any of her other novels). It would be more appropriate to include that information in other related articles where it is more relevant, such as Mary Poppins (film) (which you did add), Mary Poppins, or P.L. Travers. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 00:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Explaining that Travers still held resentment into her 90's is new information that is absolutely relevant to the section. She never came around on the issue. Her hatred for the Disney movie was carried through her entire life. This paints a stark contrast to what you might expect after seeing the movie. You never would have assumed it was so serious. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
"Expecting" and "assuming" something from the film, such as "facts, allegations, and ideas" is an example of original research, which is disallowed on Wikipedia. We can only present facts that are directly supported and verified by existing reliable, published sources. This section is supposed to analyze the film's accuracy in terms of the events that happen during the film, not decades later, as such an inclusion forms a bias, which also goes against the policy of having content be written in neutral point of view. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 19:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It appears most of the issue here has been resolved, as I'm reading it. However, I must agree with Jedi94, that the info regarding the Broadway adaption does not really have a purpose on this page. That should be removed, and possibly put elsewhere, if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The connection with the musical has been made by several sources in relation to the premiere scene, where she is deeply touched by the father figure. Critics have noted that she was angry in reality, and have further explained how this affected the relation between Disney's corp and the writer for later projects. As the section is about critics have said as a reception of the film, and not just about the inaccuracy of those scenes covered by the movie, facts that have been noted in the media are relevant. There are also some omissions about Travers personality that have been noted by newspapers, as salients features of her character that have been nevertheless excluded from the film; those could also be included in the section, precisely because they don't appear in the movie. Diego (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the information comparing Travers' emotions during the premiere as they happened in the film and in reality. That was a major point that was missing from the section. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 22:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: "salients features of her character that have been nevertheless excluded from the film: -  I know Wikipedia isn't a exactly a hub for journalistic integrity, but this page should not be parroting poorly written articles from other publications, or if they re they should be contrasted with the filmmakers' responses. Yes, other articles have discussed how Travers was bisexual, a pagan, and had an adopted son, and this information was purposefully omitted from the film "because: Disney". The screenwriter, Kelly Marcel, noted that Travers did indeed have male and female lovers, but was alone by 1961. Travers is clearly seen distributing her miniature Buddha statues about her hotel room, and when Disney asks her if she has children, she stammers a "not exactly" rather than a "no" before being cut off.--FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

To avoid further reverts, I say we reach a final consensus on where to place the historical accuracy section. Per WP:FILMHIST, such information would either be a part of the Production or Reception sections, or as its own independent section. Since the information isn't too vast (compared to that of Argo's), I suggest that we place it as a subsection of the either two aforementioned sections, preferably the Reception section, since the information exists as a critical analysis by critics and historians in response to the film. What does everyone else say on the matter? ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 17:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There are no hard rules to dictate its placement. Which is good, because not every Historical Accuracy section is the same. Some have to do with details like clothing the characters wear, or dates of central events. This Historical Accuracy section has to do with the story that the movie is telling, especially the last 3rd of the film, and how it contradicts history most relevant place to put the story as it's told by historians is after describing the story as it's told in the movie. Why would we split that up? 96.228.59.201 (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind, I didn't want to call this a "Historical Accuracy" section - I wanted to call it "Inaccuracies", directly referring to plot inaccuracies. And I'm still not sure that it shouldn't be called that, because that's what the section is about. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The section's title should use neutral terminology. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 19:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The heading should be "Historical accuracy" and placed as a section in production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the film's production. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The production, etc. is part of the timeline of the movie's evolution, for lack of a better word. Epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have any strong preference about its placement, as the section is fairly self-contained. The inaccuracies prompted commentary from several critics, but it also describes real life and fictional events; and it's also directly related to the elements included in the film's plot, although it doesn't contain just plot elements; so both options are sensible, and both have problems. I think a good compromise is Favre1fan93's suggestion to place it in the Production section, which is not too high nor too down in the article. Being a biopic, choosing what to include in the script and how much embellishment to provide is a crucial factor of the film making process. Diego (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot different ways that we could justify putting it in a number of different sections, but I think the most important factor of this section is that it compares one of the central aspects of the plot of Saving Mr. Banks with historical fact. You'll read about the climax of the movie, and then immediately read about how the situation actually played out. There's no better opportunity for perfect flow in this article than that pairing right there. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Diego that Favre1fan93's suggestion is a suitable one, because not all biopics (or films for that matter) are intended to be 100% factual. They are works of entertainment first; history lessons second. The filmmakers choose what they wanted to include in the film and how to best represent it, which depended on how well it suited the type of story they wanted to tell—a trait that one would consider to be a key component of the film production process. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 23:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no insight into development here, it has nothing to do with the film's production. I see a lot of fancy footwork to try to put this somewhere else, but Production doesn't make any sense. And the arguments for "Critical Reception" fell flat too. I'm waiting to hear why the section about how accurate the plot is belongs anywhere but under the plot. Why is this an issue? 96.228.59.201 (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
So far you're the only user in direct support of that move—which makes it far from a compelling argument. Over the course of these discussions, it seems that your argument is based simply on the singular premise that the film depicted something incorrectly, and that a section of factual information needs to be introduced immediately after the plot, as to not confuse the reader as to what was real and was not. Consider the following for a moment; neither Argo, 12 Years a Slave, Erin Brockovich, Ed Wood, Philomena, Munich, Out of Africa, Amistad, Captain Phillips, Frost/Nixon, Dallas Buyers Club, United 93, Lincoln, J. Edgar, Charlie Wilson's War, The Butler, Zero Dark Thirty, Catch Me If You Can, or The Insider (just to name a few examples)—which are all related genre films containing controversial content and equally controversial depictions of said content—have any of their "historical accuracy" sections be placed inside or part of the article's plot section. In fact, they all exist under the "Production"/"Reception" sections or as their own independent sections located either between those two or near the end of their respective articles, which extends from Wikipedia's manual of style used for film articles. These are logical steps in such cases because they are designed to follow guidelines, and to not invoke a sense of bias or non-neutral point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's core polices. If you feel that strongly about presenting historical accuracy in the same confines as the film's plot, then consider the fact that not one such argument has been enacted at any of the aforementioned articles. Furthermore, I don't see how the argument for the Reception section falls "flat". The only reason we have such a section devoted to determining the film's accuracy in the first place, is because there are existing critics, historians, and media outlets that have analyzed the film for mistakes. We are presenting those analytical  responses because they are criticisms of the film. They are done in response to what the film depicts. If there were no existing third-party sources reporting on the film's mistakes, we wouldn't even be considering this section's inclusion (whether the film was accurate or inaccurate), because there wouldn't be any notability or verifiability to prove such claims. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 01:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
So far you're the only user in direct support of that move—which makes it far from a compelling argument.
That's not argument against my argument. You need to support your thinking with information. But you do, later on. First though, about the "Criticism" section.
The only reason we have such a section devoted to determining the film's accuracy in the first place, is because there are existing critics, historians, and media outlets that have analyzed the film for mistakes.
The only reason we know anything is because somebody had studied it and published their knowledge. Wikipedia would be one giant "Criticism" section.
In regards to your list there, you cherry picked the articles that agreed with your layout. I won't do the same. It's irrelevant where other editors have chosen to put the "Historical Accuracy" section. The angle of each one is different - they have different purposes and different needs. The one in our article is very clear what its purpose is, and that's to explain the actual history behind the movie's plot. It'd be most reasonable and convenient, in that case, to put it after the movie's plot. Any other "Historical Accuracy" section that has the same purpose, and isn't found under their movie's plot, should also be moved there for easier reading. Many, many mistakes don't make the original mistake right. Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? That we all have freedom to identify and solve problems quickly? Oh wait, that's not the case here at all anymore...and it's thanks to people like you. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
So you believe that those similar instances are automatically mistakes because they don't align with your point of view of where something should go? Placing the information elsewhere in the article doesn't affect its validity, nor does it negate its existence. You've claimed that some of us were "hiding" the information in our edits. I don't see how that is, considering that regardless of where the content is placed, it is just as visible and readily available as any other piece of information. That being said, let's stop the bickering, and refocus this conversation back to what it was created in the first place—to reach a consensus. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 02:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
So you believe that those similar instances are automatically mistakes because they don't align with your point of view of where something should go?
I explained my logic.
You've claimed that some of us were "hiding" the information in our edits. I don't see how that is, considering that regardless of where the content is placed, it is just as visible and readily available as any other piece of information.
If a Wikipedia article about you had information you didn't want people to see, where would you prefer it be - at the top of the page, or at the bottom?
Placing the information elsewhere in the article doesn't affect its validity, nor does it negate its existence.
But it does affect the convenience of a good layout.
let's stop the bickering, and refocus this conversation back to what it was created in the first place—to reach a consensus.
It's your turn. You didn't argue against a single point that I made. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a game. No discussion should be centered about having a back-and-forth with someone. I've already said what I needed to say on the matter without becoming redundant. It's time others expressed their voice so that we can reach a resolution. Although it's apparent that every option any of us have suggested (and there's been several), you have circumnavigated it because it doesn't fit what you want. Wikipedia isn't about winning. As an editor, you have to be open to compromise and be willing to yield to consensus.~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to yield to bad ideas. The section has nothing to do with production, or critical reaction. It has everything to do with plot. 96.228.59.201 (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
One thing that you seem to forgive is that the plot is a descriptive section and the historical inaccuracy mentionned by somes critics is sometthing closer to an analysis or a reception than a description. The fact is that we need to provide reference for the noticed inaccuracies. For me we could perhaps include the inaccuracies in production, if we have proof that it's a developement team choice else if it's a fact mentionned by a critic we should put it after/below in the article in a reception or analysis section --GdGourou  - °o°  - Talk to me 08:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that it belonged in the plot section, I said that it belongs below it. The plot is descriptive, and this is an evaluation of its historical accuracy. And while some of the authors of these articles might be criticizing the movie for being inaccurate, the section isn't about people criticizing the movie, it's about how the movie contradicts historical reality. Half of Wikipedia could be put into a "Criticism" section if we took the author's tone and motivation as an indicator for where to put their information.
Also, instead of fitting the section where it belongs, we're going to try to add content to make it fit somewhere else? 96.228.59.201 (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It belongs after Production, as it discusses what is in the finished, edited film, how that differs from the historical record, and why. Such a discussion only makes sense in this article following setup of production and development and, as others have said, it is analytical rather than descriptive. Especially given president for the section's placement, it may be a violation of WP:NPOV. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The Plot section would belong after Production then too, since its purpose is to describe the finished, edited film. And the differences between "description" and "discussion" are semantical, and where we place these sections changes on a case by case basis, as illustrated in examples above. Neither of these points are good enough reasons to move its current and most relevant placement under Plot. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Go argue your case with WP:FILM and see if they'd be willing to revise the other articles on biopics to match your favored format. Meanwhile, I'm starting the dispute resolution process.--FuriousFreddy (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Like I've said, there isn't a rule. What makes most sense for this article is for the section describing the historical accuracy of the plot to be placed directly under the plot where it's most relevant. There are examples of other Historical Accuracy sections being placed where they're most needed, and this one already has been. I'm still wondering why this is such a contentious issue. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I am happy with how it is now. Right after plot, in a separate section is a good option as it does directly relate to story-related accuracy more than any other kind as it compares how the events depicted actually happened in real life which are fresh in their mind as they've just read the plot. e.g. in the Lawrence of Arabia article - Historical accuracy section follows the cast list as it's mostly related to depictions of the characters.  
I would be opposed to a move to within the reception section as I think that for this film it should be reserved for box office, critical reception and awards. 
An alternative, I would be happy is if it were put between production and release in a separate section like the 12 Years a Slave article.Cowlibob (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
With other showbiz-based films based on or relating to real people that I've edited (Dreamgirls, The Temptations, Ray, What's Love Got to Do with It), the section covering where the film deviates from the factual record (or, in the case of Dreamgirls, ostensibly a work of purer fiction, where it repurposes the factual record in a different context) is near or after Production, as it involves the confluence of writing, directing, acting ,and editing to reach the final result. I have never seen it immediately following plot, and it is clear (also based on a number of edits of my own specifically talking about how things were changed and why slipping out of the article line by line) that it has to do with a bias towards Travers and against Disney/Walt Disney, the concept being that, as a Disney production, it's attempting to rewrite history by itself being biased _against_ Travers and _for_ Disney. I don't think it's a mistake that you read "this film is inaccurate because x, y, and z" before you read the production and development history.
Let it first be said that any narrative film based on a true story is a work of historical fiction: dialogue, settings, situations, characters, etc. are always made up to suit the tone and flow of the film, not reality. Second, the filmmakers were fairly transparent in multiple interviews about what is factual, what is invented, and what is adapted (for example, it is noted that Walt Disney departed for Palm Springs a few days after P.L. Travers arrived - following their trip to Disneyland, which happened first and happened so that Travers could do a paid book-reading engagement), and much of the Travers/Disney dialogue in the film is based on letters and telegrams, not face-to-face conversation. The filmmakers were also transparent about the only content edict Disney (the company) made involving the film (as noted i nthe article, the script was developed outside of Disney and placed on The Blacklist website reporting high-rated unproduced screenplays in 2011) - Walt Disney cannot be shown on-camera smoking, a studio policy against onscreen smoking characters initiated by Roy E. Disney several years before.
Finally, the fact that the film differs from the actual events has no bearing on the plot of the film itself. Look where this section is in an article I did no writing on, American Hustle - it's further down the page than it ought to be, but certainly nowhere near Plot, as it should not be anywhere near plot. Whatever, then, is going on here? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How transparent the filmmakers say they were about the film's historical accuracy in behind the scenes footage is irrelevant if it's not actually reflected in their film. The History Accuracy section makes it very clear where reality differs from the plot and the filmmaker's interpretation of these events. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a movie. It is not real life. I'm not sure how old you are, but every "biographical film" you've ever seen is to some degree a pack of lies. No one in this film is accused of violent crimes they did not commit (What's Love Got to Do with It), entire state governments are not lied upon (Ray). I am not sure if you quite understand this, but we have specific rules that do not allow the bending of articles towards one side or another in any argument; everything must be presented from a neutral point of view. People's reaction to the film being inaccurate should certainly be noted, but the comments fro mthe filmmakers (and, where both stray from it, the actual recorded truth) should not be ignored either. And if you revert my factual, referenced additions to the Historical accuracy section once more, I'm filing and RfC on this article and you can take up your case with them.--FuriousFreddy (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I am a volunteer from DRN. I just wanted to mention that the IP editor is filibustering against consensus. the DRN filing has been declined and the article may be reverted back to the consensus version. If the IP reverts again, I recommend WP:ANI--Mark Miller (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Please refer me to this consensus. The opinion here is somewhat divided, but landed in favor of the section's current placement. If there was a debate elsewhere about this issue, I wasn't a part of it, and consensus hasn't been reached. As you can tell, I feel very strongly about this issue - FuriousFreddy's bias is clear - and I want to be involved with any part of the process of moving the Historical Accuracy section. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
None other than you agreed to have it under the Plot section. WP:FILMHISTORY says that "Historical accuracy" should be within Production or Reception, and WP:FILMPLOT says that "Plot summaries are self-contained sections", so it's inadequate to have anything other than the plot. That's a pretty good consensus against placing the differences within the Plot section. Diego (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:FILMHISTORY says that Historical Accuracy information should be placed within Production or Reception until it's large enough to become its own section. Both of those sections are the ones that make the most sense if you have to place the Historical Accuracy information into something OTHER than a Historical Accuracy section. Once HA becomes its own section, however, you're allowed to place it where the information would be most relevant. If you look at other examples throughout Wikipedia, the Historical Accuracy placement is fluid and is often based on the content of the specific Historical Accuracy section. Ours is almost entirely about the film's basic plot, and it makes the most sense that it'd be featured under Plot.
UNDER Plot. Not within it, like you're trying to claim.
What you're describing isn't consensus. It's just another example of someone intentionally misinterpreting Wikipedia's rules to find excuses to move a section that has already been appropriately placed. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
If you're not arguing to put it within the Plot section, then why have you moved it within the Plot section? Diego (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The Historical Accuracy section is where it's been since it was created - directly below Plot, describing the historical accuracy of the plot. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
That's not a reason to put it against the WP:FILMPLOT guideline, nor an answer to my question. Diego (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Your "question" is the latest of 7 or 8 attempts by editors to move this section away from Plot. Each "question" so far has been founded on misunderstanding Wikipedia rules or faulty logic. The evidence is above you - one of the latest being just a moment ago from you, misreading WP:FILMHISTORY and trying to use that misreading to your advantage.
Your interpretation of "self contained" in WP:FILMPLOT, which I disagree with, is not the reason you want this section moved. You've been a part of this discussion for weeks, and this is the first time that you try to bring this up? I'm tired of playing games. I've been forthright with my thinking since I created this section - my argument has never changed, and it's because I've been honest about it. And I suggest you join me if you want to continue this discussion. Why do you want the section moved? 96.253.65.178 (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Enough. I find it incredibly puzzling that this issue has not been laid to rest. Despite 96.253.65.178's claims, there has already been an outright consensus as to where the "Historical accuracy" section should be placed; as a subsection of the production section. In fact, this entire discussion was only started in the first place as an attempt to reach a consensus. All of the active editors in the discussion (including myself, Diego, and FuriousFreddy), as well as past contributors (Favre1fan93, GdGourou, and Epicgenius) have agreed (or at the very least, compromised) that the most appropriate and ideal location for the information is in the production section. The IP editor is the only one against and has so far failed to provide any concrete rationale against the move, and instead has continued to filibuster the idea that it belongs in the plot section because of its relevance. The consensus, in fact, has become so clear that there has even been a tertiary editor (Mark Miller) who analyzed the whole conflict and concluded that there was already an outright consensus present, and that any further reverts from the IP editor would be treated as even more edit warring. Once again, consensus has been reached and this discussion should be over and done with.
96.253.65.178, I suggest (if you haven't already done so) that you please go and completely read Mark's reasoning as to why your logic was mistaken. Also, please be advised that—per Mark's previous suggestions—we will enforce WP:ANI on the article, if you continue to go against consensus and/or revert any edits related to this issue. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 02:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The arguments to move the Historical Accuracy section from its placement below Plot have been as follows:
HA should be placed in Production, since the elements of fact and fiction that you put into your movie are a production choice.
Our HA section isn't, in any part, about why the creators of Saving Mr. Banks decided to put which elements into their film. The section shares no insight into development, and isn't about the film's production in any way.
HA should be placed in Reception, since the information is an analysis by critics and historians.
Every piece of information in our HA section comes from historians, not critics. The information is from historians explaining the history of the Mary Poppins project, in the same way that any expert is sourced for any section of any article in Wikipedia.
HA should be placed in either Production or Reception because that's what WP:FILMHIST says to do.
WP:FILMHIST says that HA information should be placed within Production or Reception until it's large enough to become its own section. The placement of the independent Historical Accuracy section is not mandated under any style guideline.
HA should be moved from under Plot because WP:FILMPLOT describes Plot as a "self contained section".
This one just came up today, after months of discussion. I personally don't think that the language "self contained section" affects HA's placement, but it's something that should be discussed. If HA needs to become its own section as a result, this is also something to explore, and would be an easy fix.
HA should be placed away from the Plot section because Plot is descriptive, and HA is analytical.
The purpose of Plot is to describe the film's plot, and the purpose of HA is to describe the plot's contradictions with history. This is a semantical argument, and doesn't have any Wikipedia rules to back it up.
HA should be placed where other HA sections have been placed before.
HA placement is inconsistent and changes on a case by case basis. You can find them in Production, in Reception, and as their own independent section elsewhere in the article. To use Wikipedia's rule to argue for HA's placement, you would have to find a rule that explains where the HA section needs to go. If one doesn't exist, it's our decision to make.
---
Most of the opposing points have come from Jedi94 himself, who has been against the existence of the section, not just its placement, since it first appeared.
If consensus is what we need to move Historical Accuracy away from Plot, there isn't any yet. And I'm not being coy about this. I don't care how many editors have joined together to be wrong about this - if you're wrong, you're wrong. The arguments for moving the section are clearly laid out above. My replies are clearly laid out below them. If you disagree with any of the reasoning, please explain it here. If you try to move the section without your own reasoning, it'll be reverted, as would any similar edit.
Our Historical Accuracy section exists to describe how the basic plot device of Saving Mr. Banks - as well as key plot elements, including the film's climax - contradicts historical fact. There's no more reasonable and convenient placement for this information than under the Plot section, which it is a direct response to. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You are severely misinterpreting WP:FILMHIST. It states: Their approaches to incorporating these topics or others' reactions to their approaches can be interwoven in the film article's article body in sections such as the "Production" section and the "Reception" section, respectively. If ample coverage from secondary sources exist about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" ("accuracy" being applied as neutral terminology). This right here, is stating that historical inaccuracies should be interspersed within the production or reception section. BUT, if enough content should arise (as has done here), it should become a subsection in either of these two sections. So it's location as a subsection in the production section is correct. Stop filibustering and move on. Concensus is to keep it where it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You're misreading the article. The placement of the aforementioned "sub-topic" is free to move where its content would be the most useful and logical. It's not tied to either section. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
FILMHIST doesn't say anything about that, so I don't know where you are getting this idea of a floating section, free to place where ever. That is why we have a MOS. And it has a section regarding Historical accuracies.... which is says goes in the Production or Critical reaction sections as a subsection. That's it. You have this idea that because this section is so tied to the plot, it has to be near the plot section. Well all biopic that have these sections, most likely talk about the plot too. And when the Film Project was determining how to structure the article, they determined the Production or Critical reaction sections were the best place for this info as a subsection. FILMHIST lays it out pretty clearly how they should operate, and FILMPLOT pretty clearly states that the Plot section should just stay the plot. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thankfully not everything on Wikipedia is so rigid, and in this case the editors are given freedom to decide where Historical Accuracy sections would be the most useful. FILMHIST does not define where the sub-topic should go, and FILMPLOT's guidelines are specifically about how to format the description of the movie's plot. Our section does not violate that - it compliments Plot without interfering with its purpose. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You want a policy-based reason to not have the Historical accuracy below the Plot? For the same reason you didn't want to have it below the Reception: it gives an undue weight to the content. Placing it at that prominent position besides the plot is essentially yelling "This is what you saw in the movie, but THESE ARE ALL THE WAYS HOW THEY GOT IT WRONG, THOSE MANIPULATIVE BASTARDS!!". This is not acceptable for our core neutrality policy, as the coverage that the film has received has not made those inaccuracies the most salient point to tell about the film.
You have admitted that you want this placement in order to contrast the plot, by immediately placing the section below them, to highlight its "inaccuracies"; so your motivation here is trying to push the content above what it deserves on the basis of the amount of attention given to it in the media. If the *only* thing that critics had noted about the film were its lack of accuracy then yes, the Historical accuracy would be placed right below the Plot - merely because that would be the only other content in the article-, but that's clearly not the case here.
And now don't go again complaining that this is a new argument that nobody had made before, because 1) I have said this before (as well as Jedi94 and FuriousFreddy did, in even more explicit terms), and 2) the only reason why people keep introducing new arguments is because you refuse to acknowledge the old ones, even if every other editor find them reasonable. Diego (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
If your argument is that placing this information below Plot is unfair because it's putting too much focus on its information, then you've admitted that your argument is from a POV. You feel that the information is negative, and you think that it deserves to be lower because of this. And you know what? I bet every other editor who's against Historical Accuracy's placement has that exact same POV. But Wikipedia doesn't have one. Information here is neutral. This section isn't damning the movie, it's describing a single element of it. An element, in fact, that people might find more interesting and relevant than the Production or Reception sections, if that's an angle that you were trying touch on. But it's not one that I need. I placed this section for logical, organizational reasons, that have nothing to do with how I perceive the information or how much media attention it's gotten.
And I refuse to acknowledge old arguments? How can you think you could get away with saying that? Look just above you. I went through the entire discussion post-by-post and laid everything that everyone's said out into one message and then REresponded to it all. If the editors here have solid arguments as to where this section should go, why do you continually need to manipulate information and engage in misrepresentation? This website attracts the worst people, with the worst biases. But we also have a system in place that doesn't let 5 of them band together and do something that's wrong. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand the WP:NPOV policy. Of course I have a bias, exactly in the same way you have a bias; the point is that the article should not be biased with anyone editor's point of view, and the way to do that is by reaching a compromise among the editors who care (normally by studying where reliable sources put weight in their reporting). Placing the section were you want it would merely replace one bias by another, so nothing is gained by that argument. Since you're unwilling to reach any agreement and are merely making unproductive edits, you're not contributing to that process, and your edit warring is merely a disruption of the process to resolve a dispute. Consensus *can* be reached by blocking disruptive editors and letting everybody else find a compromise - is that really what you're aiming for? Diego (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Your edit to move the article further down the page is motivated by the POV that the information is negative and shouldn't be seen so high up. That's not how we make decisions here. And if you feel like your edit war has been disruptive, or that you've been disruptive by engaging in an edit war, you should stop said disruption. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about that, I won't move the section any more today. The proper process to end the edit war has already been set in motion. Diego (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Oh, and in no way I think that the section is negative - in fact, that's the very first content I came this article for, after watching the movie; this still doesn't prevent me for wanting to provide the section with the proper weight it deserves, and not giving it undue prominence. Diego (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
"Placing it at that prominent position besides the plot is essentially yelling This is what you saw in the movie, but THESE ARE ALL THE WAYS HOW THEY GOT IT WRONG, THOSE MANIPULATIVE BASTARDS!!"
"in no way I think that the section is negative" 96.253.65.178 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not a contradiction. I don't consider the content of the section to be negative, I think that YOU make it look bad because of the connotations of placing it right below the plot, which imply that you want to "correct" the inaccurate story with "the truth". Diego (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad that we're finally being honest about the root of this issue. Unfortunately, whether something "looks bad" isn't how we decide how to arrange sections on Wikipedia. If you're describing a person's presidential campaign, and want to include information about controversies during a specific event of the campaign, you don't shove that information down a few sections below the event to make the person look better. You put "Controversies" in its most logical position immediately after the pertinent information. Information is neutral on Wikipedia, and the thinking that you're describing isn't how we arrange things here. "Historical Accuracy" goes immediately below "Plot" because it's branching off of the information from "Plot". It's as simple as that. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Wait, you say you weren't being honest about the root of this issue before? Diego (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User 96.253.65.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), you can't insert your opinion on what Travers' "true feelings" were in the article. Speaking of contradiction, we have a reliable source stating that  "the only person who could verify that died in 1996". If you want to bring in the idea that Travers disliked all of the film, all of the time, good; but do so by quoting a source that makes that same point, not by imposing your own words in the text. I think it's very clear in context that Travers wasn't thrilled by the premiere; no need to distort the sources or write in pointy style to right a wrong. Diego (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Your patience is commendable. But if the editor continues to disrupt the article it may be best for the project as a whole to report the editor and let the chips fall where they may.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
We arrange sections according to their due weight. What that IP had done was merely filibuster. I suppose you guys can call for the block quicker next time.Forbidden User (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

We have a conflict between this article and P.L. Traver's article. In this one, it says, "Travers' last will, in fact, bans any Americans from adapting her works to any form of media." In Travers's article it says, "she acquiesced on the condition that only English-born writers and no one from the film production were to be directly involved with creating the stage musical. Contrary to popular belief these points were not stipulated in her last will and testament. A section in her will (section 5-c) directs the trustees to follow her wishes regarding exploitation of her literary estate, but these wishes have not been made public." Both statements are sourced but both cannot be accurate. 2001:5B0:26FF:2EF0:0:0:0:38 (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Walt Disney was depicted at least once before in a mainstream film, Once Upon a Time. Disney is shown from the rear, talking on the telephone, but we hear his voice, which bears no resemblance whatever to the real Disney's voice. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have some observations and questions about the plot section. 
The salient point (to me, anyhow) that Travers only finally agreed to discuss a film adaptation when she was out of money and risked losing her home. Therefore, she was at Disney Studios almost against her will, practically under duress, and so was a hostile participant from the start. (Her home represented a stable anchor for her that her childhood lacked, but that is my OR. .^_^. )
There are instances of awkward wording. 

". . .on account of. . ." instead of, say, "because of" or "due to".
"Travers describes Banks' characterization as completely off-base and leaves a session distraught." - does the sentence really need a baseball metaphor like "completely off-base"? Not everyone understands baseball jargon. How about something like "misunderstood"?
". . .and finagles an invitation to the premiere." Finagles, as in "1. to obtain by indirect or involved means, 2. to obtain by trickery" - merriam-webster.com? She decided to go; she showed up; she received an invitation. Just the facts.
There's not a single inline citation. Some of the interpretations are personal interpretations, unless they come from extra content added to a disk or in a printed source. If that's the case, then citations are mandatory clarifications. There are also what appears to be cases of original research and synthesis.

". . .[Travers Goff] whose struggles with alcoholism hastened his death from consumption." It did not say that in the film. Goff was presented as an alcoholic; he had TB; nothing in the film stated that one hastened, or caused, or even predated the other.
". . .puzzled by Travers' disdain for fantasy, given the fantastical nature of the Mary Poppins story, as well as Travers' own richly imaginative childhood existence." How did the Disney staff know that Travers had a "richly imaginative childhood existence"? That was never discussed by them in the film; heck, they didn't even know that P. L. Travers was an assumed name.
". . .painful memories from her past numb her in the present." She appears in no way numbed nor does the film say she is, but in contrast, she behaves very emotionally and angrily. I would say something like the painful memories "distract her from the project".
"Disney fears that she will give the film negative publicity." I saw the film last night and do not remember hearing the Disney character say that. The impression I was left with was that due to the difficulties her behavior presented, he didn't want anything more to do with her. Either way, lacking a citation, the most we can say is that he didn't invite her, but she arrived, so he provided her with an invitation.
". . .which clearly possesses a powerful personal significance for her." Perhaps, but I think the article can do without that superfluous pounding in of the obvious (both to the film viewer and the reader of the plot summary). Besides, "clearly" to whom - a weasel word.
I'm sure there are more examples, but I'm tired. Good night everybody, Wordreader (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I wanted to work Travers' final line in the movie "No, no. It’s just that-- I can’t, I can’t abide cartoons!" into the article. I feel it would make the historical innacuacies section clearer and, well, more accurate, if we say that the movie attempted to address her anger at the final product in this way. However, as currently written and sourced, I couldn't find a good place for it. Any suggestions?--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saving Mr. Banks. 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/20140208033218/http://screencrave.com/2013-12-12/interview-saving-banks-scribe-kelly-marcel/ to http://screencrave.com/2013-12-12/interview-saving-banks-scribe-kelly-marcel/
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) 11:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)