Jump to content

Talk:Cry Baby Lane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-reliable sources

[edit]

I've removed some non-RS references from the article. Listing them here so that someone can use them to find better sources:

utcursch | talk 16:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit user copy

[edit]

Also moved from the article page (added by Ohsnapitsdoruk):

Recent developments revealed that a Reddit user has a copy as testified to here and proven here. Another Reddit user has offered to restore it to airing quality, and release it on BitTorrent. utcursch | talk 16:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it might not meet the reliability standards for general information about the film, it IS a reliable source of information on what happens on Reddit. The sentence should stay. -Waidawut (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, people, PLEASE discuss on the talk page, don't just mindlessly edit/revert -Waidawut (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter of availability; as long as one other, contactable person retains a copy of the movie, I do not believe this information should be removed. It is more than speculation. Ohsnapitsdoruk (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See reliable sources and notability guidelines. If a person on Reddit says "I killed Osama", "A reddit user claims that he killed Osama" cannot be included in the article on Osama bin Laden. utcursch | talk 17:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It appears from reddit comments and the clip uploaded to YouTube that someone probably does possess a copy, but reddit does not meet WP:RS guidelines, and all the 2 minute YouTube clip proves is that someone possesses a clip of the first 2 minutes. SGMD1 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something that didn't exist before exists now. Even if it's only the first two minutes, it's still new information. Some mention of it should appear in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.157.111 (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the movie clip is verifiable and hence a reference to it can probably be (and is) made in the article (I'm not 100% sure about whether citing a 2 minute clip of a copyrighted work constitutes fair use though.) But any references to the discussions on reddit regarding claims that the clip is proof of someone having the full movie is not acceptable, and any reference to the full movie if and when it is posted on YouTube by the redditor is definitely not acceptable as per WP:RS and WP:FAIRUSE. SGMD1 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You guys should know that the movie is being downloaded by thousands of people right now. I just finished watching it in full, from opening to credits. This is no longer a lost film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.170.206 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for temp lock

[edit]

Can we please get a temp lock on this article before it turns into a revert-war between redditors, 4channers, and trolls? 99.35.130.229 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. bobbyllama (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clarification on Reddit reference

[edit]

Reddit is not a reliable source because it does not publish its own news articles through a reviewed process. Nor are Reddit discussion threads reliable sources. Discussion threads are primary sources, and the use of primary sources involves original research on the part of the editors, which is not allowed (see: Wikipedia:No original research). This is not to say that these events in question will never be part of this article. If, say, the Huffington Post and E! News (or the like) write news articles about this Reddit incident, then a strong argument can be made to include the story in the article. However, it is extremely unlikely that a link to the Youtube video will ever be included, because the video-copy breaks copyright restrictions, and Wikipedia has a policy against linking to copyright infringements. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, if something happens (and there is video evidence), but nobody (RS) finds it newsworthy, it never happened? 108.17.72.2 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news desk. It is an encyclopedia. It is meant to contain a collection of information compiled already by reliable sources (see: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). Plenty of things happen in the world. Most of them are not encyclopedic. Whether those things are worthy of being included in Wikipedia is best determined by whether or not reliable, credible sources acknowledge them. Kingturtle = (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But what if the unverified information directly contradicts previously verified information in the article? I agree that Wikipedia should only be a encyclopedia that uses verifiable info, but it seems that some of the previously verifiable info is now incorrect. Stuckatsecond (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Verified information trumps unverified information, even if they contradict. Eventually, some unverified information becomes verified information...then the trick is to balance two pieces of verified information that contradict. For an entertaining read, see Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars. Kingturtle = (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the article has basically been cleaned up to avoid any contradictions. It no longer says "no copies are known to exist." We can still say that Nickelodeon has neither re-aired nor released any copies for distribution. But an individual retaining a private copy made from the original airing cannot be added to the article unless it is in a verifiable secondary source. SGMD1 (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, use your noggins. It's clearly relevant to anyone viewing this article. 90.204.167.35 (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant? Perhaps. Usable? No. There are serious problems with using reddit comment threads as a source. There is no way to verify the veracity of the content. While it may seem counter intuitive, the policy really is necessary to prevent random Bob from adding his own flawed research and such. I'm willing to be that if the conversion of the video is successful, a non-primary source will pick up on it. Falcon8765 (TALK) 02:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) For example, would you use a unverified IAMA thread as a source about a celebrity? Falcon8765 (TALK) 02:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
90.204.167.35, no one here has called the alleged existence of a tape irrelevant. The argument against its inclusion involves the absence of verifiability through credible, reliable sources. The tape may exist. But mere existence is not enough to be encyclopedic. It must also be referenced elsewhere by a credible source. Discussion threads are not credible sources. Even the video itself is not a credible source. It needs to be mentioned by a newspaper, wire service, monograph, article, or anything from Wikipedia:Suggested_sources. Kingturtle = (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew is the protagonist, not Carl

[edit]

I realize that most of the plot descriptions online say that Carl is the younger brother who must fight the demon and all that, but the fact is they're wrong. If you watch any of the youtube videos it's obviously Andrew who is the younger brother and Carl who is the thuggish older sibling. The plot needs to be changed to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorMarcus (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These so-called YouTube videos aren't reliable sources (there's no proof that it's even the actual movie), unlike, say The New York Times, which published a plot summary. Esrever (klaT) 20:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No proof it's the actual movie? Are you freaking kidding me? Just look at the cast list, Andrew comes first because he's the main character, the protagonist. Not Carl. And besides, the picture in the article shows CARL being possessed, who is obviously the same person in the videos who plays the OLDER brother. You know perfectly well that because of this film's obscurity all the real information is on supposedly "unreliable" sites. Why would the New York Times give a crap which brother is who? They're not gonna care considering this was just a silly children's horror flick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorMarcus (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I haven't bothered to even look at the YouTube video. It's simply not a reliable source. I'm guessing the NYT gives a crap which brother is which because they are, y'know, The New York Times. It's a national newspaper of record: I don't know that they're really in the habit of printing made-up stuff. And besides, it's not just the Times that disagrees with you. Every other reliable source says the same thing. And my guess is that picture you uploaded will soon be deleted anyway, as it doesn't really qualify under the non-free content criteria for use in this article. But even if it's not, a picture you uploaded is also not a reliable source. Esrever (klaT) 02:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You silly wikipedia moderators take this website WAY too seriously. Honestly, nobody gives a crap but you. There's plenty of information on the web about this movie that you won't include just because YOU don't like the websites. Now this article is so bland and uninformative that there's no point to it anymore. And you don't think it's possible that the times made a mistake when writing the plot summary? Every single plot summary of Cry Baby Lane is word for word the same thing, so if the original source made a mistake then they all would've followed it. Nobody really cared to double check it simply because the movie is obscure. It makes sense if you use your brain rather than blindly accept what someone else told you. You know, flawed as the old article was, it at least sparked some interest into the movie again, and someone even found a copy because of it. Now this article is nothing but a joke, and the average person reading it wouldn't even be aware of this film's uniquely troubled history or almost mythical status on the internet. Way to go, wikipedia. You're ruining what could've been a useful tool for finding the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorMarcus (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EmperorMarcus, you imply that Esrever is making his decisions because of his personal preference and opinion. But that is farthest from the truth. In actuality, Esrever and I are enforcing Wikipedia policy. It might be that you don't understand how Wikipedia works, or what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It contains information that is verifiable by claims made by reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not places for opinions, conjecture, or original research. All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. Your observation of the YouTube video counts as original research (see Wikipedia:No original research). You may very well be correct in your observation, but (no offense) you are not a reliable published source. Wikipedia is very clear about what counts as a reliable source. Blogs and discussion threads are not reliable published sources. We have to go with the reliable source, even if you think it is wrong.
I've tried very hard to find published work about this movie. But I've found nothing in books, journals, or newspapers. No reputable source has written about this films alleged troubled history or about its mythical status on the internet. Roger Ebert hasn't done it. E! News hasn't done it. I've looked in old newspapers and movie journals and books about movies. Nothing. I'm sorry that this article is boring to you. That's mostly a reflection of the lack of available sources. I am sure a time will come when this story gets picked up by some major news sources or critics. And at such time, we can include those as citations. Until then, the article will remain bland. I hope this makes sense. If not, please ask. Thanks for giving a crap, Kingturtle = (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Vogons bureaucrats win, again 118.210.254.202 (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having just watched the movie this is true Carl is the older brother and Andrew is the younger brother, now its just a matter of how would this be done as a reliable source without it being posted as illegal content 121.44.24.224 (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Not sure if I'm editing correctly) I have just watched the film and can confirm that Andrew is definitely the younger brother (main character) and also that Jim Gaffigan's character is named Dan, not Bob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.90.232 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

searching for references

[edit]

i thought i'd take a stab at looking in old newspapers to see if there are any news items that would support the claim that (1) many parents allegedly found it to be too graphic and disturbing for their children, and complained to the network the next day and (2) a result, Nickelodeon banned Cry Baby Lane from re-airing and never released it on video.

So far I've looked in Custom Newspapers – Via Gale Group, LexisNexis News, New York State Newspapers – Via Gale Group, ProQuest Historical Newspapers – Via ProQuest, and World News Connection. I've found nothing. Could it be that these two claims are urban legends? Kingturtle = (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also looked in the google news archives, and found nothing. Kingturtle = (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think the "controversy" section needs to be deleted, and also the claims that this film was banned. There's are currently ZERO sources that support this. It's hard to tell what happened. Maybe articles were never even written. Maybe because Nickelodeon never re-aired it, rumors started to pop up as to why it never aired again. Hopefully once the Reddit user who found the tapes put it up on the internet, some news press will pick up the story and investigate theses claims and contact Nickelodeon about it. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status as lost movie: NO LONGER LOST

[edit]

Cry Baby Lane is available at several torrent sites. It is no longer to be considered a "lost" movie, only an unreleased one.

See: [1]

--95.208.128.7 (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The date needs to be fixed, it currently reads "August 2010", not "August 2011". — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0bra51 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit is not a reliable source. I've removed this assertion that it's no longer a lost movie. Esrever (klaT) 16:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How stupid is that? You can download and watch the movie, but until some mysterious "reliable source" says the sky is blue wikipedia will say it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.122.175 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have the actual link to the torrent, but apparently we can't post it. What can we do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didshe (talk • contribs) 18:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for Gawker to pick up the story. =) Tinister (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I added a paper's article about the movie.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production location

[edit]

The filming location is contradicted:

  • "Cry Baby Lane was filmed in Tontogany, Ohio."
  • "The film was shot in a condemned neighborhood in New Jersey in a little over twenty days"

According to http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/08/13/081311-tech-news-crybaby-1-2 it was filmed in both places. However, the above wording is confusing.

Edit request from EPrototype, 16 August 2011

[edit]

Hello, I think there should be an addition to the "Availability" section of this article. I think some credit should be given to the people who actually discovered it was on reddit, the first people to stream it, and the people who sourced it for download. If it were up to me, I would add it so it was worded something like this, "A few people on /x/, a board on 4chan, were the first people to find and stream the video. It was the first stream of the movie in over 10 years. After the stream, they got together and uploaded it to many websites so other people may have it." Obviously, I'm no writer, but that's why I'll leave it up to you to do it right. Here is proof. Feel free to edit the pictures as you see fit. http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1459/cbl.png http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7982/cbl2.png

EPrototype (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like /x/ a lot but I really don't think that them streaming the film after the film was discovered by a Reddit user is really notable. The only thing really important is that someone found a copy after eleven years and uploaded it on the internet, what people did with it afterwards is trivial in comparison.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is no longer protected. Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4chan

[edit]

What I remember during the time it was found was there was a Reddit post basically going "Do you know about Cry Baby Lane?" Then someone remembered they had a VHS copy and uploaded it. That was pretty much it.

I've looked around on Google and I found nothing to indicate that 4chan even helped discover the taped copy of 'Cry Baby Lane'. What I did find was this archived link (warning nsfw) on /x/ here which pretty much confirms that someone else discovered it it on Reddit and /x/ found out about its existence just when everyone else did. I.E. they weren't part of the investigation nor did they discover the missing movie first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.130.195 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cry Baby Lane. 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:

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) 01:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has the movie reaired since 2017?

[edit]

Because that's the last time I've seen it air. CaptainMidnight287 (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cry Baby Lane is a lost Nickelodeon movie

[edit]

Cry Baby Lane is so controversial, led to be locked away in the Nickelodeon vault for eleven years. 2001:48F8:300B:3DB:501F:6213:B929:D200 (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cry_Baby_Lane&oldid=1199318739"