Talk:Doc Hollywood

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

How can this movie be set in South Carolina and Georgia? I realize they are close to each other, but the article mentions Georgia State and then says it's set in South Carolina in the "Trivia" section. I'm watching the movie now to verify, but the article needs to specify with a resource/citation. TV Guide says it takes place in S.C. regardless if it was filmed in GA or Florida. Needs clarity, the article contradicts. Thanks! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, I created a short section dealing with the claim that the plot of the film Cars was copied from Doc Hollywood. The point is made in the quote from The Guardian article and we do not need to belabour the point with a lot of verbiage and a slew of references, most of which are to unreliable sources. The point is made, and it is a minor point at that. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To: The Old Jacobite, about Cars plagiarism of Doc Hollywood

PLEASE stop deleting, and/or editing this section, for NO apparent reason. You have been doing this for MONTHS.

Right now, the "Doc Hollywood" article on Wikipedia is GARBAGE.

2/3's of this article lists NO references what-so-ever.

The fist section has NO references, except for the location.

The entire plot synopsis, which is quite long, has NO references at all.

The cast listing, has NO references at all.

The section I have created, is WELL referenced.

You apparently have some bee in your bonnet, about "notable" references. You are MISUSING this.

Here's why.

Now, would you like the biggest, best known film critic of all, Roger Ebert, to have said that "Cars", was plagiarized from "Doc Hollywood".

HE DID.

Let me repeat that.

HE DID.

On his website.

Then WHY didn't I use that "notable" reference?

Because, he later deleted that part of his review, presumably because the advertising staff at his newspaper leaned on him NOT to tick off Disney. I KNOW it was there, because I read it.

Now, I tried finding the original page on the Wayback Machine, but couldn't find it. Could be that he deleted that section, before the Wayback Machine made an image.

I was very lucky to have found Christy Lemire of the San Francisco Chronicle, a major reviewer. The San Francisco Chronicle, HOWEVER, does NOT let non-subscribers access past issues, so I couldn't link it there. Luckily, I found her review referenced in the major British paper, The Guardian.

HOWEVER, it doesn't mean that that link will last forever. I find broken links all the time on Wikipedia.

PLUS, ESPECIALLY with something like plagiarism, you want MORE than one reference.

I have listed many, the best that I could find. I left out DOZENS more. I have spent HOURS on this!

Are these references "notable"?

That's a matter of debate, BUT a number of the sites referenced certainly seem big enough.

If, by "your" definition, ONLY references that you apparently approve of (what you personally consider "notable") were used on Wikipedia, the article count would be a FRACTION of what it currently is.

ALSO, you have to use a little common sense, here. As with Roger Ebert, major newspapers don't want their writers slamming advertisers directly, OR indirectly (ie, local theaters running Disney movies). So you are VERY unlikely to see a plagiarism comment in a major newspaper having to do with any advertiser.

I was lucky that Christy Lemire, was gutsy enough to get her review published, and get away with it. Even Roger Ebert wasn't that lucky.

You have to use the best sources available. Backup sources are good. What happens if the Christy Lemire link disappears? This happens all the time on Wikipedia.

I certainly think that secondary sources are better that NO sources at all! (Which is the way that most of this article is written.)

I have referenced Christy Lemire's credentials briefly, to show that she is a major, credible source.

The "Cars" plagiarism section that I wrote, is quite short, only a few lines.

I do not understand WHY you continue to have problems with it.

Wikipedia is for EVERYONE, NOT just you alone!

PLEASE leave this section alone!

Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.148.109 (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not need all the bloat you added, nor does it need 15 sources for this very minor story. It is also ridiculous of you to fill half this page with your long, rambling response. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To TheOldJacobite.

You said, "All the bloat." The section I wrote (including heading), was a grand total of 67 words.

The section YOU wrote, is 78 words. You have made the section on plagiarism LONGER.

You said, "It is also ridiculous of you to fill half this page with your long, rambling response."

This is just a cheap, unwarranted, personal attack on ME. This has NOTHING to do with Doc Hollywood, OR the correct logic of my statements. This is NOTHING but an ad hominem attack on me, which has NOTHING to do with this article.

Is it your intention to remove EVERY reference in this article? If you are so concerned about this Doc Hollywood article, WHY have you not posted requests for references for the vast bulk of the article, which has none at all???

You said, "...nor does it need 15 sources..."

The 15 references is YOUR doing. You apparently did NOT like the fact that the plagiarism section was not referenced well enough in earlier edits in months past, so I kept adding more references, until you were apparently satisfied.

NOW, you apparently have changed your mind, and have removed ALL but one!

Make up your mind!

You said, "It is also ridiculous of you to fill half this page..."

This is a WEB page. There ISN'T "half" a page. The page is as long as Wikipedia allows.

I described my rational for my actions in the number of words that were necessary, and not more, and what I said still stands.

If you have SPECIFIC CHANGES that you would care to mention in what I have written, that would be MUCH more productive instead of unwarranted personal attacks against ME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.148.109 (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.148.109 (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To TheOldJacobite, re. changes you have made to the plagiarism section, 11.6.13.

This current version you have written is a big improvement over your previous versions. It is not perfect, but it is improved. Betty Logan's suggestion was good.

Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.148.109 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two points, and I will try to keep it short: the plagiarism aspect does not belong in the lede of this article because it is about Doc Hollywood, not Cars. Secondly, we don't need a dozen cites from second-rate sources as per WP:OVERCITE; however, a second citation to corroborate the claim wouldn't hurt (I recommend the Total Film reference since it is a respected film magazine) since it is a strong allegation. Betty Logan (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - apparently, so does Karl. (Came here from WT:WPFILM) --Lexein (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a small mention of Michael J Fox showing signs of parkinson's disease, in the production section of thie article would be good. Given the fact he's the lead actor of this film, as well as it being an event that majorly shaped his career, and heck even the future of parkinson's disease, I think a small mention is warranted. 97.84.86.83 (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]