Talk:The Fall of the City

Who's on first?

The claim of being first needs qualification. For example, Bridson's March of the 45 was broadcast in 1936 — a year earlier. The Handbook of Radio Drama Techniques says that Fall of the City was "America's first poetic drama for radio". If it was just an American first, we should make this clearer. Warden (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I am coming to the horrible thudding realization that I have to agree the qualification "American" is necessary. (Horrible and thudding as I was the person who introduced the first verse play assertion.) Other sources claim Fall of the City as the first (without qualification), but March of the '45 on the Beeb of course clearly predates Fall, so describing the "Fall of the City" as first verse play for radio in the article is clearly unsafe without qualification. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Although it has to be added that sources that I have been going through seem to class March of the '45 as a "verse narrative", an early example of a drama-documentary rather than a play, per se; using dramatic techniques with some use of fictionalisation, yes, and using poetry to narrate the story of Culloden, but not quite a verse play. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• March of the 45 is variously described as "a highly politicised verse Morality play", "a sound-panorama", "a classic of poetic radio drama", "the best radio verse play written in English", "The first radio play in verse". Looking for sources which take them both together, we find American Speech in Radio Poetry: "In 1936 the British Broadcasting Corporation produced DG Bridson's 'The March of the 45' the first poetry play written specifically for the radio. In 1937 the Columbia Broadcasting System presented Archibald MacLeish's 'The Fall of the City.' Other poetry plays designed to fit into the broadcasting pattern followed soon after.". I've already created a stub for Bridson and will do one for The March of the 45 while I have the sources handy. We should be able to get them all through DYK, I reckon. If you help with the expansion, you can claim some credit too as you started the ball rolling. Warden (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Not too worried about DYK at the moment. I didn't even realize that this article was raised there until late tonight. :) Much rather get it right first. Actually I am kicking myself (mildly but still kicking) as I thought I have covered all bases on what I recognised might be the only real contentious claim in the article. The only suggestion of an alternative nominee for the first specifically-for-radio verse play that I could find at the time (2009 if you want to see my rough notes (for the laugh) although I didn't mention MacNeice) was one vague mention of a Louis MacNeice play (presumably on the Beeb of course) that went out around the same time, but I couldn't track down anything more and couldn't find a Louis MacNeice play that fitted the bill; a play called Out of the Picture was the nearest match and I was able to narrow that down to late 1937, although I could never find evidence of it being broadcast. I made another search when I finally decided to give the article another shot last week and completely failed to find March. What was bugging me was why the histories that were mentioning Fall didn't mention March of the '45, as I was looking for non-American sources in particular for that very reason. Anyhoo, I would be more comfortable with the claim of the first American verse play for radio being in the article, rather than first anywhere; I'm just waiting to give a chance to anyone else who has a view to come in before changing it myself.
• But regarding March of the '45 and Bridson: Good grief, yes.... fire ahead there and I'll drop any sources I find into the talk page. ( Taking a "lemonade from life-proffered lemons" approach) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Photograph section

I'm a bit worried about the Photograph section. The photograph is very interesting, I think there is legitimate fair-use rationale for its inclusion, and I would even agree with most of the analysis of the photo in the section, but... unfortunately the analysis of the photo might be considered original research. I was considering using the picture in the Popular Mechanics article (page 90) link, especially as if I am very much mistaken, that's Orson Welles on the left, but I decided against it for much the same reason. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, I don't think I've ever seen that article before - bravo! You should make a link on the page for Columbia Workshop. Nice images - and yes, that's definitely Orson Welles. Concerning original research - well, I did try to make nearly all of my comments observable facts. If you think it's too problematic, maybe copy the existing section to the talk page and delete what you think are the research portions. In fact, that pic (which is really something when seen in decent resolution and size) comes from a book whose author was a CBS staff member - I just can't figure out which book it is and I've covered the obvious choices. -- kosboot (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry about delay in getting back to this. I was flattened by a bug during the week). Was thinking about it though... I think the problem is that unless the source that provided the photo actually describes elements in the picture, it would be OR to say they were X or Y, (even though I would personally agree with many of the assessments in the section) For example the man with his back to the camera is probably Irving Reis - contemporary photographs do tend to suggest that he favoured the no jacket and braces look, but there is also a possibility it is one of the other directors. (I couldn't relocate the source, but William N. Robson was one of the assistant directors.) The actor facing the camera is probably Burgess Meredith, although Even I couldn't blow the shot up far enough to be sure. When the photograph was taken during the production is also going to be guesswork. If we are using the word probably too often or guessing, then we have probably drifted into original research. An yet, the photograph is a wonderful find and does illustrate the scale of the production. Possibly if we worked it into the technical aspects section in the First broadcast section; I am fairly sure there are more sources out there to expand that section? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is my writing style in which I favor conditionals over definitive statements unless I am 110% sure of something. The reason I was going into such detail is that, as Wikipedia defines it (if I understand Wikipedia's conditions), fair use covers media files whose description is crucial to article content. So I was trying to make that photograph crucial. :) I guess the main things that are significant are the mass of people (not often used in live shows), the sound booth for Welles (also not often used), the director (whoever it is) (get to see him in action). You are welcome to amend anything you see fit. I confess: I find it a pretty stunning photograph, not in terms of beauty but in terms of "how it was done." I tend to be careful with copyrighted works, but I also think it's important to push that boundary of fair use because it is always getting smaller. Actually, when you think of it, in 2033 -- only 20 years from now -- that photograph will be public domain. :) -- kosboot (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Another point: from what I've seen, Wikipedia is pretty punctual with deleting files they don't consider fair use. They haven't done away with this one. -- kosboot (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

An editor just went over the 2nd photograph - that seems to be ok. -- kosboot (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about delay. Very little time for Wikipedia at the moment. :) But the problem with the photograph section is that unless the source actually states categorically that such-and -such is actually so, then we end up with original research, no matter how likely the interpretation is to be correct. And while I am more than happy to agree that the picture is fair use, there is too much weight and too much of the article devoted to interpreting the photo with statements which haven't or can't be sourced. The problem here is that ...well... there is nothing in that section that is sourced to third-parties, which would be necessary.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to justify the use of the photograph by describing its contents. What about this: why not eliminate what you think is really originally research, leaving enough there to pass Wikipedia's need for fair use (one of the points being that the object has to have information that's not in the article. If you think the picture is totally out the question, let me know. -- kosboot (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this material can be justified as not being OR. Nearly all of it is totally and clearly speculative. Consequently, nearly all of it should be deleted, unless there is reliable secondary sourcing available.--Jburlinson (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)