Talk:Morris the Explainer/Archive 1

---

---

---

NOTE: THIS ARCHIVE IS FROM THE DISCUSSION PAGE OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, THEN CALLED JAKE THE EXPLAINER. ARCHIVED HERE FOR DIRECT REFERENCE. —Arne Eickenberg 20:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---

---

---

This is clearly a strange example of original research. Nicely done, but pure invention by the original author. A Google search for "Jake the Explainer" turns up about 30 hits, the first one of which is this article at CZ. And a musical group. I will propose this for speedy deletion. Hayford Peirce 18:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Jake the Resurrected

I deleted the article in keeping with Hayford's comments above and a too-quick Google search. Then, I saw "Morris the Explainer" and "Sam the Explainer" appearing in the deletion log as well. I searched on those and finally saw that indeed, credible sources refer to these plot devices by name in professional, edited articles, books, and textbooks. So, while they might be obscure, it is by no means obvious that they do not deserve an article on CZ.

I should have given this more thought before deleting it--sorry about that. My only excuse is that I was wholly relying on Hayford's unerring judgment. I won't make that mistake twice! (Just kidding, Hayford!)

All kidding aside, I don't mean to have made a decision on this. If Hayford wants to argue why we should delete this, please let him make his case more completely. I don't want to take any further action (other than to annul my own hasty earlier action) until after adequate discussion.

I believe Arne might be able to put aside all questions simply by giving some sources. --Larry Sanger 20:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Jake the Explainer is an old Hollywood industry term, probably from the 1950s or a few decades earlier. It is mentioned e.g. on page 114 sq. in the book Screenwriting Tricks of the Trade by William Froug (1992), Emmy-winning writer/producer, producer of the year 1956 (Prod. Guild of America), recipient of the Writes Guild Valentine Davies Award 1987, professor emeritus (UCLA), founder of the UCLA Film & TV Writing Program, and author of several books on screenwriting. The alternative term is Morris the Explainer, also known for several decades. This term was coined by screenwriter Burton Benjamin, possibly in the 1940s (cf. David G. Yellin, Special: Fred Freed and the Television Documentary, 1973, p. 143), and it's unclear whether Morris or Jake is the original term. My hunch is that—since Jake/Morris is a dramatic tool known e.g. from Yiddish theater plays at the beginning of the 20th century (or even earlier)—the original term would be Jake due to the Hebrew roots of the name. (But that's just a guess; since Morris is in some cases also an americanized version of the Jewish Morse, both variants might support an early origin from Yiddish culture.) However, the majority today seems to call it Morris the Explainer—e.g. Lazarus (2001) and Sawyer (2003)—, of which Sam the Explainer is only a minor variant. So it might be okay to move the article to Morris the Explainer and transform Jake the Explainer into a redirect page. In any case, with regard to Hayford's comment, it is never wise to only refer to Google search results as reference. Books still do exist, you know. ;-) So, I hope to have cleared the matter up. ADDENDUM (09-01-01): Ridley Scott calls it Irving the Explainer, found in the TV special On the Edge of "Blade Runner".  Arne Eickenberg  talk 21:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow--that info should be added to the article! I agree about the limitations of Google Search, but I even checked Google Scholar and Google Books--not a single hit from those. --Larry Sanger 01:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just one other thing: the {{speedydelete}} template really shouldn't have been used in this case. If you look at CZ:Article Deletion Policy, that template is supposed to be used only for articles that constables can make decisions about on their own recognizance. I don't think that a constable could have been expected to look at this article and make the decision on his own recognizance. See the section of the above policy page titled "Articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance," and notice that under "Articles deletable only after editor instruction," there is this: "the topic or the contents of the article constitutes original research".

I don't think we have a special template for deletion requests that are made to editors. I think the procedure is just to find an editor who can recommend deletion...or else, talk to me. --Larry Sanger 20:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. Chris Day 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

When I first ran across this article I simply did a Jake the Explainer search on Google, found 30 cites, and put in my delete notice. Now that all this other info has come out I'm certainly not going to insist that it should be deleted. If you've followed my 18 months or so here at CZ you may have a vague impression that I'm an inclusionist, ie, let's put in as many facts and articles here as we can. That said, let me say in reference to this particular article:

• It doesn't, at the moment, really stand up to any "notability" test. Ie, if Google only returns 30 hits, that is almost *extremely* non-notable.

On the other hand, if I were a lordly Editor in this particular Workgroup, instead of a lowly Author, I would make the following points:

• Article is too generalized.
• Article doesn't cite any sources.
• Article says that that books/publishers also use this terminology. For 25 years I wrote fiction, and have hung around writers/editors/publishers for 35 years, and this terminology is completely unknown to me. I still read extensively in the "how-to" field of writing S.F. and this term has never turned up. So I, as an Editor, would ask the author to completely rewrite the article to make clear that this is a *Hollywood* terminology, not a book one. I'd also point out that I know people who have written screenplays, TV scripts, etc., and I've never heard them use it either.
• It seems to me that Arne is conflating Jake the Explainer with the "Stage Manager" of Thornton Wilder's Our Town, at least in some respects.

I, as Editor, would ask for a rewrite to take into account the above points, particularly citations. And even then, I would wonder if it were really notable enough to have an article under this name -- maybe "Stage manager" or "off-stage commentary" or "aside to the reader" -- I know that there's another phrase for this but I can't quite come up with it right now. Tomorrow maybe.... Hayford Peirce 03:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think this article should be Deleted, or Sourced, or Renamed, or Edited, or Something

Sorry to sound grouchy so early in the new year, but no one has paid any attention at all to the lengthy comments I made on this page nearly a month ago. All of those comments still apply. As this article now stands, it is purely Original Research. Which, if I understand CZ policy correctly, is a no-no. It would NOT be Original Rsearch if someone does some editing to it, puts in sources and citations, and turns it into an encyclopedia-type article rather than an essay. Hayford Peirce 18:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think Arne has established that it isn't original research in the sense that he just made all this stuff up himself--rather, he's reporting what he's seen in books and articles. What you mean, Hayford, I take it, is that it isn't clear from reading the article that it is or isn't original research. I think you're complaining about a different problem: the explanations in the article should be sourced. I agree... --Larry Sanger 02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It *sounds* like original research because it isn't sourced, and because it's such an obscure topic as far as Google is concerned. Plus, I think, there really are statements that shouldn't be there, unless sourced, in which movies are equated with novels. As I said in my comment above, I've been reading novels for 55 years or so, wrote them for a number of years, hang out with the novel-writing crowd, and have NEVER heard or read of anything like Jake the Explainer being used in terms of novels. I won't deny that maybe someone 30 years ago wrote an obscure book called "How to Write a Mystery Novel" and in Chapter 3 had a section called Larry the Explainer. It could well be. But let's just say that it has never, in novel writing circles, become common coin. To say, or even hint that it has, is absurd. But, as I've said before, I'm an inclusionist -- I just want obscure things to be well cited. Hayford Peirce 03:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of move to Cold Storage

I, a Constable, moved this into Cold Storage for all of the reasons I gave in the above discussions of this page; none of my comments or suggestions have ever been answered or addressed in any way in the article itself. I also, in the very early part of this year, 2009, exchanged some private emails with Larry Sanger about this. Below is the final email from me to Larry, dated January 3, 2009:

Sounds reasonable...

I just hung up my 2009 calendars all through the house -- I'll make a note on them for July 3rd to remind you of this exchange....

> -----Original Message-----

> From: tahiti@post.harvard.edu [1]

Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 1:40 PM

> To: Larry Sanger

> Subject: RE: Jake the Explainer

> > > > >Well, I think he's probably just busy...

> > I s'pose. I suggest that if he hasn't fixed it up in, say, six > months, that it be mothballed somewhere.... >

> Hayford

As you can see, we agree that in six months, if no action had been taken, the article could be mothballed. Today is six months from that date and I am therefore mothballing it in Cold Storage. Hayford Peirce 17:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally forgot about this. I added all the relevant references to the new article Morris the Explainer, which is the majority term, not "Jake". (I think I had written above that I was in favor of moving the article anyway.) —Arne Eickenberg 20:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)