Talk:The Cowboys

message: what is the name of the Vivaldi song played by the guitar in the movie? - 03:45, 27 May 2007 65.121.131.2
:The Largo movement from the Lute concerto in D major, RV 93 - Best O Fortuna (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vivaldi

message: The narrative summary is excessive, and there's a lot of uncited material/WP:OR that needs to go. DavidOaks (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you remove the mentions about the Ruby River, near where it meets the Beaverhead River, in the mid 1870s, and the railhead at Belle Fourche, South Dakota?  I think geographical mentions should stay.  They are mentioned in the film.  > Best O Fortuna (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my judgment, according to WP:Undue, but I'm not the Pope and don't claim infallibility. If it was a bad delete, please, by all means, restore! Best, DavidOaks (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings again -- you left the following message on my talk page; discussions of articles are probably best carried-out on the article's talkpage (that is, here) rather than on userpages: : Huh?  WP:UNDUE has to do with Point-of-View versus Neutral POV.  The mentions of the Ruby River, near where it meets the Beaverhead River, in the mid 1870s, and the rail-head at Belle Fourche, South Dakota are: 1) in the book by William Dale Jennings; 2) in the script written by Irving Ravetch, Harriet Frank, Jr., and Jennings; and 3) in the film directed by Mark Rydell and produced and released by Warner Bros.  There is no POV/NPOV about it.  It is just the fact of the way it is.  I don't understand your application of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In response, "undue weight" has to do with undue weight -- it's not restricted to POV issues. In an article on a film, all kinds of details can be left out of a summary without harming the reader's general understanding of the plot; there's no real reason to reproduce the geography in which it takes place, any more than we need to re-narrate the cook's story about his father. If you are of a different view about a particular detail, go ahead and put it back; the key thing is that the summary not become excessive (always a judgment call, of course; some people will settle for nothing less than a full script, others will tolerate nothing more than a blurb suitable for the poster). DavidOaks (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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