Actor mentioned in "Trivia" is not in "Full Cast and Crew" listing

Proving a negative is notoriously difficult. What would constitute such a proof? I can't guarantee that, if I watched it again, that I would necessarily see him, or recognize him if I did.

I can't guarantee that, if I watched it again, that I would necessarily see him, or recognize him if I did.

Well that is what it will take. If he is not there, yes it would be hard to prove. Then why report this or bring it up in the first place? IMDb will not investigate this. It only acts on submissions made by us. Do your due diligence and make one of the 2 submissions suggested. Otherwise that trivia will remain and you'll add that credit to John's page or not and it will be removed. Or it will remain if you do nothing.

disneymovieslist is a wordpress blog.

Well, it turns out it won't take watching it again. The Wikipedia article on the film (which I really should have checked) lists Mr. Larroquette and the role he played. I'll consider transferring his name and role to the "full cast and crew" IMDB page.

...that just uses an old version of imdb data... (before somebody deleted the credit from imdb)

@rcook Neither this blog nor Wikipedia is reliable source to add credit back.

If you will take Wikipedia as your source, the page for Larroquette says he's not in the movie then. See why it's unreliable?

Nowhere in [[John Larroquette]], the Wikipedia article about the man, is it stated that he isn't in Follow Me, Boys! Rather simply there is a lack of mention of his relationship to the movie. (We would be wise to choose our words carefully.) That in and of itself isn't a signal of Wikipedia's lack of reliability. The only signal of such a thing is the fact that Wikipedia itself doesn't include at least some kind of evidence as to the origin of every claim made on [[Follow Me, Boys!]], in addition to the fact that Wikipedia can be freely edited by very unreliable participants of the overall Wikipedia process.

No, jeorj_euler, it's stated in discussion section and edit explanations before removing it from the page. It's not simply "lack of mention"

Second, my statement about unreliability was only about this matter because of existence of two pages contradicting each other and lack of evidence. Was not a general statement. Was limited to this case.

Character name that is out there seems to be sourced from IMDB's long-standing uncredited entry that is now deleted. Film page of Wikipedia seems to be a remnant of IMDB's old wrong credit too. If you delete it now nobody would object it there I believe.

It looks to me IMDB was responsible for a misinformation spreading over years that is now hard to delete all traces from the internet.

But what "IF" it was accurate, and it is not misinformation?

What bona-fide evidence do you know of that states the facts as you are presenting them.

Otherwise it is supposition.

I'm not presenting, just observing. I just believe it would need good proof and convincing to delete a credit that was there for 15+ years. No need to go in circles until staff confirms if it was a mistake or not.

But where is the evidence that the edit recorded at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Larroquette&diff=936491791&oldid=935872594 (on the 19th of January, 2020) is based in truth? Is it valid simply because nobody saw fit to revert it? Yet the same could be asked about the edit recorded at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Larroquette&diff=736774827&oldid=733333648 (on the 29th of August, 2016). The person responsible for the 2016 edit was logged into Wikipedia, whereas the person responsible for the 2020 edit was not. I see that the reputation of the logged-in one is potentially tarnished by remark documented at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnDaLeCoMpLeX&diff=602156560&oldid=601807967 (on the 31st of March, 2014).

Where is the evidence that initial submission to IMDB years ago was based in truth?

Where is the evidence that recent removal from IMDB is approved by a mistake and not supported with proof?

Where is the evidence that all that initial Wikipedia additions was not just copied from IMDB*

Most importantly where is the evidence that he appears in the movie at all?

To repeat: I'm not in any side here, I just think removal is not approved by mistake or accidentally for a long-standing credit like this. That's all. Of course we will know that for sure when we get an answer from staff.

* (thus to be able to remove it from IMDB is enough to get it removed from there since no other evidence is there to warrant its stay)

The question concerning publicly-accessible records about the notion of an uncredited appearance in an old movie goes back to a time over ten years ago, and I would like to know the origin, but I may never know if the records have been destroyed or are intended to be permanently locked away from the public.

Origin looks like IMDB to me like I stated (again don't act like I claim it's the absolute truth, just stating some observations and possibilities)

Because IMDB has it more than 15+ years, Wikipedia page gets created way after than that, and uses IMDB's character name with no other source.

All this back and forth diatribe is supposition, except for Jeorj's Wiki Data of course.

So there is no way for either side of this issue to say it belongs or not.

Lets say we all stop supposing and wait for IMDb to decide this.

Not spoonfeeding is not supposition. I'm not suggesting anything.

It's not that complicated, show the visual evidence where he appears. That simple actually. No need for all this circling back and forth at all.

Let me rephrase: Lets say we all stop talking and wait for IMDb to decide this.

IMDB had already decided it when deleting the cast credit, so there's nothing for them to decide really.

Prove your supposition of "what "IF" it was accurate" with a real visual evidence (ie. not a bot-generated spam blog or wiki site) or there's no issue.

Rank Abbreviation Meaning ***** NMTP Non-Martensitic Transformation Product *** NMTP New Management Training Program ** NMTP Network for Multicultural Training in Psychology ** NMTP Nuclear Materials Transportation Permit ** NMTP Non Motorized Transportation Plan ** NMTP National Machine Tool Partnership * NMTP Never Mind the Pollacks * NMTP Never Mind the Polygons * NMTP National Mechanic Tool Partnership * NMTP New Music Theater Project * NMTP Non-Matching to Position * NMTP National Medicare Training Program * NMTP National Masters Training Package * NMTP National Medium Term Plan * NMTP NetScreen Management, Troubleshooting and Performance * NMTP New Methods of Teaching Physics * NMTP New Mexico Tebuthiuron Program * NMTP Nuclear Materials Technology Program * NMTP New Mexico Technology Page * NMTP New Member Training Program * NMTP No Me Traiga Problemas * NMTP nonmatching-to-position task * NMTP North Margin of the Tibetan Plateau * NMTP Northern Mozambique Tourism Project Read more at http://acronymsandslang.com/NMTP-meaning.html

...misconception that the "INTERNET" must be correct...

that was your misconception all the way around with the weakest so called source possible that's found with a simple google search -a bot generated spam site that uses a scraped old version of imdb data-
I just stated it needs to be proved with a real evidence which you did not provide. IMDB was already convinced by proof provided and deleted it, I said existence of it needs to be proved after that, that's all. Have no idea why would you target and attack me but I have no interest in continuing this. Please don't reply to me in this topic any further.

Yeah, I'm afraid trivia entries aren't reviewed much -- I've found it way too common to have two trivia entries duplicate or conflict with _each other_.

In this case, we have evidence that Mr. Larroquette, who would not have been 20 yet, played a small role in the film (from Wikipedia) and I'll likely submit a change to add him to the 'full cast' listing later.

No we don't have evidence for that and your submission will be declined with only a Wikipedia link as your source.

And Wikipedia page for his name says he's not in.

Noting the remark "And Wikipedia page for his name says he's not in", I should reiterate that the page itself has never indicated so, but only some comments in the page's corresponding edit history.

On [[Follow Me, Boys!]], one John Larroquette is listed as portraying an army soldier partaking in war games. The edit history of the article is partially redacted (for lack of a better description) for all versions of the article that existed prior to the 9th of November, 2010, on account of a "blatant" copyright violation.

There you go. Now I know where to look more closely when I finish watch it tonight. It's actually a pretty good movie for 1960s standards. Good story. Ozzie and Harriet wise that is!!!!! LOL

On the 14th of February, 2014, an anonymous person posted on the Wikipedia Talk page for the Wikipedia article about John Larroquette, claiming in regards to Follow, Me Boys!, "He appears during the war games sequence of the film as the tank commander." If indeed there was such a character on screen, then it would be important to know whether or not the actor portraying him is the famous television actor, otherwise whether or not he is somebody else bearing the same name. That implies three possibilities in regards to the claims of an uncredited "John Larroquette".

At age 18? This sounds more like Stripes. But he was credited!!!

A possible "Theory". Agreed.

It is no more plausible though than the reverse being possible too.

Yeah it's best if an employee checks what justification was given to delete it.

Agreed. It is so hard to remove a credit as we all know. We have seen countless posters come here desperately wanting to remove a credit only to be denied because it is hard to prove a negative.

The only scenario that I can see is that it was removed was because the uncredited attribute was not present. Otherwise if it was uncredited, the only way to prove this would be to watch the whole thing, and not see Larroquette at all in the movie, which we all know IMDb will not do!!!

:):)

Alas, it is very hard to get the IMDb company to go searching through submission records (electronic records, mind you) from too long ago and for any of its staff members to at least provide a vague description of their specific findings. Sometimes Col Needham and Grayson will mention "complexities", but I for one don't understand why somebody trustworthy cannot be recruited to sort out the many complexities. It's an electronic database, a digital one, for crying out loud. Is the data within it so big that not even a supercomputer can be used to sort out at least some of the chronic limitations? Hm...

They are understaffed. Some searches require labor intensive keyword inquiries. If it takes more than a predetermined amount of time to accomplish a task, I'd imagine they are instructed to drop it in favor of an efficient use of resource time.

Deletion seemed to be happened fairly recently. Wouldn't be so hard to locate it probably.

(I believe same person who made it deleted from IMDB also deleted from name page from Wikipedia but forgot to delete from movie page, just like forgot to delete the trivia item lol)

@gromit82

I paid for it yesterday. Gotta finish it tonight. Now I know where to look.

It's not there anymore.