# Talk:Pocahontas (1995 film)

I tried to put an addition to the historical inaccuracy section which was as follows:
'John Ratcliffe's character is far removed from the historical person. The real Ratcliffe was actually criticized by fellow colonists for giving too much away to the Powhatan in trade, which Smith criticized him for. Rather than being genocidal, he emphasized peace and trade with the Powhatan. He did not return to England, but rather he died in the Virginia colony. He was invited by the Powhatan to meet them under his understanding they would give him food, and they then captured him and tortured him to death by clawing off his flesh with mussel shells.'
But it was immediately reverted by the user SummerPhd
I don't understand why this would be reverted. The actual true story of Ratcliffe is extremely different from how he is presented in the film, and I can't see why this would not be relevant alongside the other historical inaccuracies within the film.Reesorville (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The short answer is that your addition was sourced to a "self-published source" and likely synthesis. You did not provide a reliable source that make the comparison.
The long answer has to do with that material that often shows up in film articles: comparisons to other media (other films, TV shows, books, etc.) and comparisons to the real world. While there are often sources discussing some significant changes, the material that tends to be added without sources (or with unreliable sources) is often more POV, with editors particularly focused on aspects of the film that drew their attention. The result is an addition with a very POV focus.
I don't know much about the historical Pocahontas and barely remember seeing portions of this particular film a few years back. That said, from my previous exposure to Disney films, I'm willing to bet that the film contains very little that anyone would consider to be historically accurate, with the noble savage falling in love with and converting the would-be conqueror (both of them with perfect hair) through spontaneous song and dance amid talking animals in the virtual Eden that never seems to exist in the real wilderness.
That said, there are certainly reliable sources taking Disney to task for there conversion of messy historical reality into a Disney princess musical romance. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
If a credited source is needed, that should not be difficult to find. One could even go to some of the library of congress sources or other material that is cited on the John Ratcliffe (governor) article that mention the same facts as on the website I put before. These are not historically contested details.
You are correct, that we could not put every detail that was different between historical reality and Disney fiction within the section, but I would argue that the historical accuracy section on the page is meant to provide the most notable differences. Ratcliffe is the major villain and antagonist of the movie, and the fact that his historical person was completely different from the film, I would think would easily qualify as a notable difference. If it was some minor character, I would concur with your argument, but I can't see how it could not be mentioned for this case. Reesorville (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
If there is no further discussion, I am going to add this part back into the article and I'll add further sources Reesorville (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem is not that we do not have sources saying the historical person did X, Y and Z. The problem is that we do not have ONE source comaparing the historical person's actions to those of the character in the movie. Instead, you are using synthesis.
Taking information from two sources (such as one source discussing the real person and a second discussing the film version) and combining that information to say something new (such as saying the film's portrayal varied significantly from reality) is a particular type of original research that Wikipedia calls "synthesis". Without our policy forbidding this, Wiki[edia would quickly devolve into a series of unending arguments about vegetarian nutrition, which politician is guilty of which crimes and orbital mechanics in the film "Gravity".
While avoiding arguments is nice, it also provides a stop to block the inclusion of too much trivial material. Obviously we could research historical characters verses their portrayal in film and spend the rest of our lives writing about what we find. Then someone else will come along and decide we've been to kind or too harsh and rewrite the whole mess. Readers, meanwhile, will be given one or the other editor's opinion as fact.
Instead, Wikipedia is designed to report wh'at independent reliable sources have to say about a topic. We call it "Verifiability" and No original research", both pilars of the project. "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated in the published sources." - SummerPhDv2.0 20:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I can't understand how this would constitute OR or synthesis. The sources state exactly what I wrote. I haven't added something or made my own conclusions. How do you propose that we include something here to explain to readers about the inaccuracy around Ratcliffe's character? Reesorville (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't look at what you wrote in your notes when you made the deletions before writing here. Your issue is not really with OR but with the quality of the sources, you took issue with one source because it was a personal website from an individual, and the other two sources you think are off topic. The Jefferson papers have a Virginia Colonial records timeline that includes the detail about Ratcliffe dying at the hand of the Indians, but not the other facts. I'll find other sources, then, if that is better. Reesorville (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me try to simplify this. You are trying to add several variations of "The film is inaccurate because the film character did X <ref>source about the character, A</ref> while the historical person did Y. <ref>source about the historical character, B</ref>"
"The film is inaccurate because" is unsourced WP:SYN, created by combining information from two sources (A and B) where neither one says that directly. If source A is reliable, what it says about the film might belong in this article. If source B is reliable, what it says about the historical people might belong in articles about those people. Source A does not discuss the actual people, so it does not belong in articles about the people. Source B does not discuss the film/characters, so it does not belong in this article.
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources...If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." - WP:SYN
Sources that do not discuss this film are off-topic.
Self-published sources, such as blogs (with very limited exceptions) are not reliable and cannot be used here.
(As a side note, you boldly added material. I reverted you. Please wait for discussion before restoring the material, per WP:BRD.) - SummerPhDv2.0 19:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that the source needs to mention the film, if it mentions the history, because the film itself and its plot is already on the page. A source is needed to support something when something needs support. If I have an article about the sun, and I reference something that talks about sunspots and I create a section about sunspots using that article as a reference... but the article itself makes no mention of the fact that sunspots are on the sun, would that be counted as synthesis or OR if I then wrote the section about sunspots within the article on the sun, given that the original source didn't specify that they were located on the sun? It is not necessary, Wikipedia's rules were not created for that purpose.
If you prefer, I could just write the sentence with mentioning the historical detail within the 'historical accuracy' section while not making any statement about how this was different from the film. For example, rather than saying 'John Ratcliffe did not go back to England, rather he...' I could instead just say 'John Ratcliffe died in Virginia by...'. Would that be acceptable? Reesorville (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Sources which do not discuss the subject of the article cannot be used as sources for that article as they have nothing to say about the subject.
The intention here is to show that the character in the film differs from the historical person. Including material from a source about another subject (the historical person) is being used to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" (WP:SYN). Your suggested workaround is synthesis. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is that the vast majority of sites that make a direct comparison with the movie are blogs or fan sites, and they do make this conclusion about how Ratcliffe's character was changed by Disney, hence it is by no means OR to state this conclusion since it is already found elsewhere. While the fansites are not authoritative sources, the conclusion that they are making, however, is based upon authoritative sources, which do not make the comparison directly. Given that the conclusion on the fansites is obvious if the authoritative sources are true, I don't think that it would be right to interpret Wikipedia's rules to exclude this usage, because I think that that was not the purpose that the rules were designed for, since it is then working against the purpose of an encyclopedia.
For example, if we were doing the article on Disney's the jungle book, and we put a note to point out that King Louis the orangutan was not in Kipling's original story, and in fact orangutans are not even in India, while to reference this we reference Kipling's original story to support the first claim and a wildlife report to support the second claim, because all the other sources making the claim are not considered authoritative in themselves, would it qualify as OR synthesis?
That being said, it is possible that we can find an authoritative source that does make the comparison directly. I have done a search online and the best I can find that doesn't cost anything is this media site http://whatculture.com/film/15-darkest-disney-villains-of-all-time?page=4 . Would this be sufficient at least for the claim about his death? Reesorville (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
What unreliable sources (blogs and such) say is of no help here. If I add a claim that a politician is narcissistic, based on my comparison of his actions and a definition of narcissism, that is OR/SYN. That numerous blogs make the same statement does not in any way support my addition. Wikipedia exists to report what reliable sources say about a topic. If reliable sources don't discuss a topic, Wikipedia should not have the material, whether it is a politician's narcissism, differences between a book/history/film/remake/novelization/comic book, helmets used by NASA and those used in a film, etc.
What I think we're running into here is that there is very little coverage about the historical accuracy of a Disney cartoon because no one is really expecting historical accuracy from a Disney cartoon. In addition to sharing a universe with talking animals and breaking into song at random intervals, Pocahontas is a Disney princess, along with those who fall asleep from poisoned apples/cursed spindles, turn frogs back into princes or are actual mermaids. I'm certain that there are reliable sources that quash the idea that trees can sing in English. I doubt there are reliable sources that spend much time discussing that as an "inaccuracy" in the film. It's a Disney cartoon; listing inaccuracies would be far more time consuming that listing the bits of reality they kept.
"I'm certain that there are reliable sources that quash the idea that trees can sing in English." Well, I sincerely doubt that such sources do exist. 46.244.245.138 (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
As to the new source, it seems to be more of the same. The tone of the article didn't suggest it was a reliable source. Digging into the site, I didn't find anything to suggest a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy or editorial oversight. They seem to be little more than a pay-per-click content farm.[1] The reliable sources noticeboard came up with similar opinions previously.[2][3]
Frankly, I think the section explaining that "Ratcliffe" was chosen as the villain based on the "sinister" sounding name and basing the portrayal on various historical figures more than covers that this is a highly fictionalized film with weak ties to reality. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Your comparison of a politician being in love with himself is a false analogy. Sources are needed when things are contestable. Not everyone will share the same opinion about a particular politician, hence, a further source is needed to back up the claim. If a claim is incontestable by its nature logically, and no one would contest it, a source isn't even needed in the first place. For example, if I have an article on sunspots, which doesn't actually specify that our sun has sunspots, and I use this on the wiki article dealing with the sun, I think it would be a warping of the purposes behind wiki's rules to then insist that this could not be included because it didn't make the specific claim - the fact would be that no one would ever contest it, and hence it shouldn't even be necessary to provide a source for the specific claim or conclusion. I feel the same is true in this case.
Disney films are watched by probably billions of people in this world. They influence massive numbers of people and while what you say is true that people know that the things in the film are not true, there will be massive numbers of people that are at least influenced in their understanding of things by the way that the film depicts those things. Everyone will know that there is no talking willow tree in Virginia; not everyone will know that Ratcliffe was not a genocidal aristocrat and that Disney is making him stand in for something that other people did. Everyone will know that there are no talking monkeys in India; not everyone will know that orangutans live in a different part of the world. Everyone will know that there are no trolls or ice queens in Norway; not everyone will know that ice cutting and selling ice was actually a business prior to the invention of refrigeration. It serves a good duty to researchers when an encyclopedia points out those sorts of things, when in fact the general public would usually not pick up upon it. Reesorville (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Bottom line: Wikipedia exists to report what reliable sources say about a topic. If reliable sources don't discuss a topic, Wikipedia should not have the material. Without reliable sources discussing it, we really don't have more to say about the fictionalzation* of Ratcliffe that is already there. (*I think I just invented a word.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk • contribs) 02:59, November 7, 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pocahontas (1995 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Changedforbetter (talk · contribs) 02:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Haha I've never reviewed a film article before, so this should be fun. It's pretty hefty so I'll try to get the bulk of it done within 5-7 days.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


### Production
#### Development
Think I'm gonna start with this section...

Beginning with the very first sentence here "Following the release of The Rescuers Down Under", there are several instances of film titles being mentioned without the "dates" they were released (The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, etc...); I think you should take a look through the article and add a year to the first time each film is mentioned in brackets – for example Beauty and the Beast (1991) and so forth. Here's a hint: if you simply left click on the wiki-lined film, it gives you a short synopsis of the film, usually beginning with the year it was released.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
"... director Mike Gabriel was eager to collaborate on a vastly different follow-up project with veteran Disney story artist and character designer Joe Grant." Try "director Mike Gabriel was eager to collaborate with veteran Disney animator Joe Grant on a follow-up project that was vastly different from the animated adventure film."--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
"...Gabriel took a one-sheet color image of Tiger Lily from Peter Pan and wrote the title Walt Disney's Pocahontas on it, and on the back, he taped a one-sentence pitch of "an Indian princess who is torn between her father's wishes to destroy the English settlers and her wishes to help them — a girl caught between her father and her people, and her love for the enemy." I think this can be simplified quite a bit; try "... Gabriel wrote the title 'Walt Disney's Pocahontas" on an image of Tiger Lily from Peter Pan (19....), to the back of which he taped a brief pitch that read "an Indian princess..."--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
"...At the time, Feature Animation president Peter Schneider had been developing an animated version of Romeo and Juliet for many years and Gabriel's timely pitch had many of the same elements. "We were particularly interested in exploring the theme of 'If we don't learn to live with one another, we will destroy ourselves,'" recalled Schneider. Try "Coincidentally, Feature Animation president Peter Schneider had been developing an animated version of William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, and observed several similarities between his idea and Gabriel's Pocahontas pitch; Schneider recalled, "We were..."--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Changedforbetter: What other changes should I make? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
"Gabriel's pitch was quickly accepted, becoming the quickest story turnaround in studio history" are you able to clarify whether Pocahontas was the quickest turnaround in Disney studio history, or film studio history in general? It's currently unclear.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
"Head of Story Tom Sito went on the record stating he wanted to include more and broader jokes..." simplify; "...Sito once stated than he had originally wanted to include "broader" jokes..."--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment This currently meets Wikipedia:Quickfail #3 as the Accolades section is completely unreferenced. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I can fix that within the next few days; just for the record Changed, Quickfail means you can fail it if you choose, not that you must do so. P.S.
I originally wrote that. I was referring to Disney's studio history. Christianster94 (talk) 2:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The Beauty and the Beast article is a GA and it lacks sources for its accolades section. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no intention of quick failing this article; I don't think it would be necessary at all. Magic is extremely committed and has done some great work – I've just been having some technical issues, but I'm back.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:GOFISHING. Also, that was three years ago. Changed doesn't have to close it if he wants to stick with it, but the Accolades section needs citations. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Fixing the problem. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem is fixed. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Awesome, well done!--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear @MagicatthemovieS:, I bare some sobering news; when you nominated this article for GA I automatically assumed that you were the article's main contributor. However, despite your quick and impressive edits over the past few weeks, it has recently been brought to my attention that you actually did very little significant work on this article prior to nominating it, which is almost like taking credit for someone else's work which I simply can not stand far no matter how much I appreciate your passion and recent efforts (similar to what you had tried to do with my Gaston and Ursula articles a few months ago). For that reason, I regret to inform you that I must fail this article for the time being until its rightful editor feels that it is time to nominate Pocahontas for GA.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Changedforbetter: Who is the rightful editor? I would be happy to contact her/him to see if they would be OK with the article being nominated. Also, I most certainly wasn't trying to take credit for anyone else's work! I was just trying to better this article. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to tell from the history, but up until a few days ago it wasn't you. Also, while again I admire your intentions, your process is reversed; the article should be improved before it is nominated. The prose needs a lot of work (I simply don't have the time to point all of them out); perhaps you would consider getting this article peer reviewed for copy-edting and such before nominating – I'm sure another reviewer would be happy to give it another chance.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Changedforbetter: Do you know of an editor interested in Disney who might want to review Pocahontas for GA status now that I have had it peer-reviewed and altered its article accordingly? (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@MagicatthemovieS: I'm the rightful editor. I was responsible for a major overhaul for the article back in May 2015. I'll be more than happy to help Pocahontas become a Good Article. Christianster94 (talk) 2:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Christianster94: Awesome! I'll re-nominate it right away! talk) 2:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Christianster94: Are you planning on editing the article or reviewing it for GA status? Either is appreciated.  3:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@MagicatthemovieS: I was planning on doing minor structural and grammatical revisions, but the article looks good for now. Christianster94 (talk) 6:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@MagicatthemovieS: @Christianster94: @Changedforbetter: Sorry to pick bones here, but there are a few issues with this being reopened. (1) Christianster94 cannot review this as he has been heavily involved in editing. (2) This has been reopened while the peer review is still open. We don't know if any other editor will participate in the PR, but it has not been closed. (3) The first GAC has been reopened, rather than a Talk:Pocahontas (1995 film)/GA2 being created, and Changedforbetter is still identified as the reviewer. The review has also been pushed up in the list of film nominees, ahead of nominations that have been there for longer. This article was not nominated in September. [4] Closing this; GA2 should be opened if this is to be reviewed. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pocahontas (1995 film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 06:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments
"The musical score was written by Alan Menken, with songs written by Menken and lyricist Stephen Schwartz." — Can be rephrased "The musical score was written by Alan Menken, who also wrote the songs with Stephen Schwartz."
"The project went quickly into development concurrently with" — Scrap "quickly".
"Meanwhile, Disney studio chairman" — add "then" between the comma and Disney.
Wikilink Indian at first instance.
"produce another sweepingly romantic animated film" — "sweepingly" sounds like fluff. Scrap it.
Just state Susannah Grant by her full name whenever you have written about her and mention Joe Grant by full name also. Best for now.
"who provided the character's speaking voice.[59][60][61][62]" — Too many references cluttered. Link at least two of them to each of the artistes.
"worked on the film." — Is this sourced?
-It's in ref 40

Pomeroy's statement borders on WP:QUOTEFARM. Trim it by explaining portions of the quote in your own words.
"Finding feathers difficult for Redfeather to gesture with," — Would be better if you rephrase this sentence to avoid repetition of "feather" at such close proximity.
-"Redfeather" is a proper name, so the sentence isn't repetitious.-MagicatthemovieS

"Both wanted to use the keyboard, but they arrived at a working strategy." — What kind of strategy?
"The Blu-ray was first released in Australia in February 2012 and followed by a May 30 European release and an August 21 American release." — The Australia and European releases don't seem to appear on the citations given (109 and 110).
I'll perform the source review tomorrow, MagicatthemovieS.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review
The NYT reference title is incomplete. Wikilink NYT too.
Wikilink BOM.
Turner Classic Movie should be "Turner Classic Movies". Write the title as per the url (year and comma between Pocahontas and the included). De-italicise it.
Wikilink Chicago Sun-Times.
blu-ray.com should be Blu-ray.com. Include the date of publication.
"p. 15-16" should be "pp. 15–16".
Rewrite the reference as "Ziebarth, Christian (December 19, 2005). "A Conversation with Eric Goldberg". Animated Views. Archived from the original on May 24, 2015. Retrieved May 24, 2015." Do the same for Mike Gencarelli reference no 48.
Fee required should be Subscription required.
The reference is not found despite having been archived. Here is the link. 2014-08-26 should be August 26, 2014.
Good enough.
"pp. 240-1" should be "pp. 240–241".
"rec.arts.disney" isn't a reliable source. Try some other URL.
Wikilink "The Philadelphia Inquirer".
Fee required should be Subscription required for all Highbeam references.
Animation World Magazine redirects to Animation World Network.
"pp. 220" should be "p. 220";
Wikilink Los Angeles Times.
"pp. 196-97" should be "pp. 196–197".
"p. 506–7" should be "pp. 506–507".
Mention the date as "July 31, 1995" for the Disney Adventures reference.
Reformat reference number 111 properly
Reference number 118 is a Box Office Mojo one, not Amazon.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail: 

Better now.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have tagged three problematic items.

"There is much controversy over whether or not Pocahontas actually rescued John Smith from being slain by her father's tribe. Many have argued that Smith fabricated the story of Pocahontas saving his life in order to gain popularity."
The source for this is a scholarly article which discusses Pocahontas but does not mention, let alone discuss, the film. Its inclusion here is to imply historically inaccurate content in the film. This is WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." The cited article is one source, the film is another. We do not have a source comparing the two.
"The controversy surrounding whether or not Pocahontas saved John Smith exists largely because Smith wrote two very different accounts of his captivity. The first one, published in 1608, included a generally flattering description of Powhatan and his tribe. This first account contained no mention of almost being slain by Powhatan. It was not until Smith released his second account around 1622 that he described any cruel treatment by Powhatan, and his supposed rescue by Pocahontas. Because Smith's two accounts consist of very different facts, and because the second was released only after Pocahontas had gained prominence in England, many hypothesize that Smith embellished the story of his captivity with respect to Pocahontas."
The source cited says, "Thanks to the Disney film, most students know the legend of Pocahontas.  But is the story told in the 1995 movie accurate? In this lesson, students use evidence to explore whether Pocahontas actually saved John Smith’s life, and practice the ability to source, corroborate, and contextualize historical documents." A lesson plan asking students to research a question does not demonstrate that there is a "controversy". The explanation following the claim is entirely WP:OR
"Albeit captain of The Discovery, John Ratcliffe was not the first governor of the Jamestown Settlement."
Again, the source cited does not discuss the film. Inclusion here is intended to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." - SummerPhDv2.0 19:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@SummerPhDv2.0:
I can remove the references to controversy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 14:15, February 9, 2018 (UTC)
That addresses one tiny bit of the above. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@SummerPhDv2.0: A wise man once said: be the change you want to see.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 10:20, February 10, 2018 (UTC)
A wise woman once said: Don't obfuscate. Say what you mean. If you are now OK with the changes you opposed[5], say so. If you mean something else, say what you mean.
Oh, and please sign your posts. The instructions are on your talk page. Several times. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
There are articles out there which mention the film and its inaccuracies; if you'd like to change the articles, I suggest you link them.----MagicatthemovieS— Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 11:58, February 10, 2018 (UTC)
I removed the material as unsourced. You restored it. If you would like to retain the claims, it is your burden to supply reliable sources to support the claims. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd be much obliged if you put "citation needed" notices next to unsourced info so I can find sources which discuss the info in question.----MagicatthemovieS— Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 13:24, February 10, 2018 (UTC)
I removed unsourced material, per WP:V.
You restored the material, essentially saying you liked the material. It was then your WP:BURDEN to source the material, but you didn't.
I tagged the problems and started a discussion here. You said you "could" remove a tiny piece of the problem, removed one of the problems and removed an OR tag (saying that the synthesized material wasn't synthesized.
Your explanation here was to quote Gandhi. (For all of his accomplishments, I don't recall him editing Wikipedia much.)
I asked for clarification. You said to do whatever I wanted, then changed your mind and said I should find sources for the material you want to keep.
I've removed the material. If you'd like to try to find sources now, the material is available in the page history. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is littered with would-be paragraphs that are little more than tangentially related sentences.
Yes, WP:PARAGRAPH says they should be used "sparingly", going on to say that "Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs."
I could somehow craft an odd sentence summarizing a main idea that those two sentences discuss and make that into one paragraph.
"Glass should be used sparingly in cars" implies that glass can be used in cars when needed.
Writing in English means that single sentence paragraphs are necessary in this article.
If it helps you to understand it better:
Wikipedia is littered with would-be paragraphs that are little more than tangentially related sentences. Yes, WP:PARAGRAPH says they should be used "sparingly", going on to say that "Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs." I could somehow craft an odd sentence summarizing a main idea that those two sentences discuss and make that into one paragraph. "Glass should be used sparingly in cars" implies that glass can be used in cars when needed. Writing in English means that single sentence paragraphs are necessary in this article.
- SummerPhDv2.0 19:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Why Disney does not talk about the live-action remake for "Pocahontas" (1995)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.255.216.208 (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC) 

"Due to the complexity of the color schemes, shapes, and expressions in the animation, a total of 55 animators worked on the design of Pocahontas' character alone," I fail to see anything like a "complex color scheme" in the movie, or elaborate facial expressions. Skin tones are of one single hue all over the body! Of course, Pocahontas is pre-CGI, obviously painted on transparent cels like so many previous Disney films, but it lacks practically all hints on highlights, shadows or volume of bodies! So much that it practically looks all-2D. Even when she sings songs in closeup, there is not even a hint of skin motion, or shadow, visible. Combined with the rather short running-time, the entire production looks lowcost to me. Even the source that was given for this paragraph, 61, does state -along with the phrase "complex color schemes"- that the movie has a "more flat and geometric appearance". I would therefore think that the sentence cited is just POV with no real source backing the statement. Who wrote Pocahontas trivia on Share TV, which is no longer online, but only archived in the Wayback machine? 46.244.245.138 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Since accuracy seems to be an issue at least on the Talk page, I think part of the discussion in here should be distilled into the Criticism section of the article. The movie WAS reviewed with reviewers pointing out several inaccuracies. What comes to my mind is that Jamestown was founded by the British, yet the soldiers clearly wear spanish helmets, something no british leader could have tolerated. Britain and Spain rivalled for the benefits of the "New World"! How could personnel on a british ship get spanish helmets? Those guys were poor and would not carry souvenirs from a another rivalling military power.
John Smith got shot by a musket. Two alternatives arise: Either the ship had a doctor on board, then such a patient would be treated on land. Or it did not. An arduous voyage of several weeks with severe malnutrition would spell certain death for a man with a shot wound in a world that did not know antibiotics, so this must be considered a plot hole. While it is not for Wikipedia to discuss plot holes, it adds to the list of inaccuracies. It just doesn't make sense. But it spared Disney from having either have a "happy-end" (which would be ever so blatantly unhistoric considering the fate of the Native Americans and of the historic Pocahontas, or have a tragic end, which Disney wouldn't dare. So the took "dramatic freedom" to disguise the fact, that the historic Pocahontas was no young woman, but merely a girl, and was captured and held for ransom by the settlers, and "encouraged to convert" to Christianity, as the Wikipedia article about the historic Pocahontas euphemistically calls her alienation from her culture.
One could say Pocahontas is just another fairy tale told by the Disney company. And bear in mind, production was conceived just two years ahead of the "500th" anniversary of Columbus, so this must have played a role in the internal view of the _business model_, so much, that historic accuracy was never really on their mind. Although they realized, that Native America considered the 500th anniversary a day of shame, and nationwide protests were organized. So Disney realized they had to have _some_ political correctness.
I will rather not go into detail, why Pocahontas should not be called a Disney princess, although that term was coined earlier with a different scope. The daughter of a chief is nothing like a princess. In fact, it could be discussed if they had chiefs at all, and how they came to power. Many were elected! Chieftainship is a model introduced by Europeans, who thought the "Savages" MUST have had some kind of leader. In their minds was no space for female leaders, which several Native Americans on the East have had, or full-blown democracies that elected their leaders. But eventually, these Native democracies were copied by European settlers. 46.244.245.138 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I just watched a Youtube video lately of Jess Harnell and he actually stated that he did sime additional singing dialoge for the character John Smith after Mel Gibson had trouble with some of the lines during one if the songs in the film. He mentions it here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXGXp3b5Z3U at 17:40 minutes into the video. 65.209.106.242 (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I did some singing, too. Can you write me in?
In all seriousness, we will need a WP:SECONDARY source talking about this. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree with Binksternet, it's best to keep Harnell removed from the article for right now until a reliable source is provided, accourding to it's policy rules. 174.196.195.138 (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The last sentence of the introduction states, "According to critics, Pocahontas has influenced all subsequent films," citing this Atlantic article. Nothing in the article supports this contention; at most, it argues that Pocahontas influenced later Disney movies and heroines. I'm replacing it with the following statement, but others may wish to suggest alternatives: "According to critics, the depiction of Pocahontas as an empowered heroine influenced subsequent Disney films like Mulan and Frozen."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theturbolemming (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC) 

I’m a tad bit confused about the different premiere information that can be shown on Wikipedia, like Lilo and Stitch, The Emperor’s New groove, Looney tunes back in action, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid simply had “premiere” written above their full release date, but movies like chicken little has “El Capitan theatre” written at the part where it’s premiere should be, so why do many films get different treatments on what’s written on the premiere of the film? DrkWebber (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The redirect Pocahontas (1995 film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Pocahontas (1995 film until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 20:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Please change "A video game titled Disney's Pocahontas based on the film was released on the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive in 1996.[159] The film was followed by a direct-to-video sequel, titled Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World, released on August 25, 1998." to "A video game titled Disney's Pocahontas based on the film was released on the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive in 1996.[159] The legacy of Disney’s Pocahontas video game, especially the Game Boy version, is mixed. While praised for its animation, positive themes, and the unique gameplay of Pocahontas learning skills from animals, it suffers from awkward controls and illogical puzzles, which can frustrate younger players. Despite these flaws, the game is notable for attempting to combine environmental themes with platforming, reflecting the film's message of harmony. However, its difficulty and unclear visuals have limited its lasting impact within the Disney game franchise. The film was followed by a direct-to-video sequel, titled Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World, released on August 25, 1998."
I am completing a semester-long project for my Honors Video Game History course and would like to add a few detailed sentences to the Legacy section, particularly about the Legacy of the Disney Pocahontas video game for the Genesis and GameBoy. The Legacy section only mentions the video game once and I would like to add more information on it. My source is both reliable and relevant. Here is what I wish to add: "The legacy of Disney’s Pocahontas video game, especially the Game Boy version, is mixed. While praised for its animation, positive themes, and the unique gameplay of Pocahontas learning skills from animals, it suffers from awkward controls and illogical puzzles, which can frustrate younger players. Despite these flaws, the game is notable for attempting to combine environmental themes with platforming, reflecting the film's message of harmony. However, its difficulty and unclear visuals have limited its lasting impact within the Disney game franchise." Here is my source: “Now Playing.” Nintendo Power, Apr. 1996, pp. 94–97. I would appreciate the opportunity to edit the page ASAP. Thank you. Olivia taylorr (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Your account met the 10-edit requirement by making this request. While implementing, make sure the additions are in "wikivoice" and properly state opinions as such. Take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners for how to format citations. Thanks, FifthFive (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)