Talk:Annie Hall

To do
This article isn't a million miles away from GA status. It gets 1500 views a day, so it's worth getting it in better shape.


 * The first Björkman (2004) reference covers its entire AH section. Specific page numbers should be given for each reference.
 * The "Themes" section is in desperate need of development. At the moment we are ignoring a range of established scholars writing in peer-reviewed academic journals and books in favour of an online magazine. There is Peter Cowie's BFI monograph for a start. Anyone else have access to an academic journal database?
 * The reception section needs development, ideally locating some negative comments for balance.
 * Awards need to be in prose.
 * Once it's in better shape, we can take it to Peer Review, then to GAN.

The referencing system, although complicated at first, is pretty easy once it's set up. You just need to copy and paste an existing reference and replace the appropriate fields. If stuck, just do it as plain text, and I'll fix it later. The JPS talk to me  11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the "Style and technique" section be incorporated within the production section? Manual of Style/Film doesn't accommodate this separate section. The JPS talk to me  23:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We should organize the article logically. The guidelines are just suggestions and not even very good at that. Given our material and the film itself, this seems like good organization, at least for now. For an example of really outstanding organization of a film article, check Titanic (1997 film) --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A developed casting section can be incorporated within a L1 pre-production heading then. I have uncovered several analytical sources. They will take time to read and summarise (and I don't have an abundance of spare time ta the moment) -- but eventually we can develop that rather embarrassing 'themes' section.  The JPS talk to me  09:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, if it is "up to the editors", then I prefer the version in the guidelines. It separates the practical production issues (including writing) from the analysis and reception. What is your argument for your preferred version? The JPS talk to me  09:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Writing is not part of production. It happens before. The section on writing is about the writing and the section on production is about production. For an example of excellent organization of a film article, check Titanic (1997 film). Woody himself has repeated the old saw that a movie is created three times: writing, shooting, editing. Or, pre-production, production, post-production. The guidelines fall short in their knowledge of film culture (note the strange mentions of crew). --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to help jump start the process to make this article into a Good Article NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cast list
I think that some of those little paragraphs listed in the cast list should be moved elsewhere, for example the information on people noting similarities between the plot and Allen's real life could possibly be moved to the Legacy section. Also, the reports of Allen's poor treatment towards his actors should be moved to the Production section NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Since Allen himself is in the cast, discussing the similarities between his life and his characters is similar to discussing any actor's identification or similarity to the character he is playing. The cast list normally includes material on the actors, the casting decisions, the actors and their relationship to their work, and that is what is covered in this material. And there is no Legacy section anyway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I can understand what you mean. And plus there is a Legacy section, I added one below the accolades section. I looked at another romantic comedy page, When Harry Met Sally... and noticed they have a Legacy section, so I thought Annie Hall should have one as well. NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean up
I was wondering wheather anybody would object to the use of SparkNotes as a source for the "Themes" section, cause I've noticed they've got a lot to say about the themes, motifs and symbols for Annie Hall NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you think that is a reliable source? Seems like we could do better. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think it's reliable, but it's not the first thing I would go with. I'll search around for anyything that could help expand that section, but if I can't find anything reliable enough for that section, SparkNotes might be our best option. NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SparkNotes is better than that amateur website that's there at the moment, although the lack of named author (and their affiliation) is worrying, as is the overbearing amount of advertising. A search at Identifying reliable sources doesn't suggest any particularity precedent either way -- if anything, SparkNotes comes out of it well. I've made some notes from Cowie that I need to add. This film deserves a better article than what it has at the moment: come on, NoD'ohnuts -- let's see what we can do! The JPS talk to me  17:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Sure! :D I'll add the Spark Notes reference and we will see what happens during the Peer Review NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

AFI recognition list
Do we want this list in the article? I have my doubts about it when it's basically covered in the text. I guess lists are frowned upon, as a rule. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think these AFI lists look untidy, so would support its removal. Wikipedia is not a scrapbook. The JPS talk to me  17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to keep it; it's a very good summary of the AFI recognition the film has received NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
 * There's a relateively recent discussion here. I suppose we could keep it for now and see what happens when we take it to Peer Review. Although it's not sourced at the moment, which is not great... The JPS talk to me  19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a source for all of them, so it's all good. NoD&#39;ohnuts (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the issue is not the sourcing. There is a question if this list belongs here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at the discussion linked above. I think this is a matter for the page editors to hash out but I am not sure. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that the discussion seemed to suggest a consensus that it should be turned into prose. The JPS talk to me  19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus on that. There were views expressed on both sides of the question. That's why I think it is a matter for page editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cream of the Crop
Is it worth it to separately mention the Cream of the Crop when it's a difference between 98% and 100%? This is a dubious listing in the first place (other Allen films don't make the distinction) and it seems to indicate some kind of WP:Peacock thing. Of course, I am fine with praising the film's greatness, but I think it is more effective to highlight genuine accomplishments, honors, awards, etc. A lot of films have 100% from RT. Other things are more rare. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Inflation adjusted gross
I don't see the importance of including the precise inflation adjusted gross when it is a number that changes every day. The comparison is important, the comparison to other films, but the number itself is superfluous. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles H. Joffe had sole credit as producer on this film
There is no dispute about this, just check the film's credits, or the poster. Because of that, Joffe alone won the 1977 Academy Award for Best Picture, as the article correctly says. Jack Rollins was his business partner. They both managed well-known comics. But they decided Joffe would focus on Allen, and Rollins on others. So Rollins took no producer credit on this film or several others in the 1970s. There was much discussion of this policy on the Talk page for Template:Infobox film, which clearly says Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc. I'm sure that also excludes uncredited business partners. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Producers
It might be worth considering if Joffe and Rollins did the job of producer or if it was Robert Greenhut. Some sources state that the partners were executive producers, and it is possible that they got the producer credit for bringing Woody Allen to the project while the production manager (Greenhut, it seems) did the work. Of course it is significant that Joffe received the Oscar and the film credit, but it's also significant that it is a Rollins-Joffe Production. Since Woody says they were both his producers and Rollins' name is on the poster, there is good evidence for more than one view. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As said above (since you started your own thread here instead of replying above), Template:Infobox film clearly says Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc. That would also exclude uncredited business partners. You're going against the policy. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you going to be honest here or will we have to deal with an editor who intentionally misstates things? I have no patience with this form of nonsense. As you know, I've provided sources where Jack Rollins is credited as Producer. So, I guess since you lack the intellectual ability to understand this or the honesty to discuss it transparently, you really don't have the minimum requirement to exchange views. As you know, I've sourced Jack Rollins as producer. You suggested we consult IMDb; Jack Rollins is listed as producer. You are so far out in left field you claimed the NY Times is not a reliable source. What complete and utter nonsense. Please return to this discussion when you are honestly prepared to see that the article is accurate. Until then, your half baked assessment is incompetent. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite WP:Uncivil, aren't you? Let's try again: Charles H. Joffe had sole "Produced by" credit on this film. I suggest you look at the film's credits, or the poster. Because of that, Joffe alone won the 1977 Academy Award for Best Picture, as the article correctly says. Jack Rollins was his business partner, to use your term. They both managed well-known comics. But they decided Joffe would focus on Allen, and Rollins on others. So Rollins took no producer credit on this film or several others in the 1970s. There was much discussion of this policy on the Talk page for Template:Infobox film, which clearly says Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc. I'm sure that also excludes uncredited business partners. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I note that some sources only mention Joffe, while others mention both Joffe and Rollins as producers. If there is a reliable source which gives the above information that "they decided Joffe would focus on Allen, and Rollins on others. So Rollins took no producer credit on this film", that would be worth including in the article.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * After looking at the edit history on the article I've locked it for three days. If any editor has a disagreement with another editor on content, they should discuss it on the talkpage and not engage in an edit war. Edit wars destabilise articles. Please resolve the dispute here on this page. If you manage to reach an agreed solution I will reopen the article. I have decided on a lock because of previous recent history of edit warring on this article.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * GothicFilm, your contribution above is worthy of an editor. For the first time, you explained your position coherently and honestly. Well done. If what you say is true -- and as I've mentioned I see that sources differ on this -- then you should provide your source for your assertion as I have done. On the other side of the coin, I note that both Rollins and Joffe went to the stage to receive the Oscar and both spoke. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Am I to understand you never saw Talk:Annie Hall where I first attempted to open this discussion? Even though my first reply on this thread began As said above (since you started your own thread here instead of replying above)? Unbelievable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Film titles credit Joffe as the sole producer, though also says it's a Rollins-Joffe production. BFI makes no mention of Rollins in its credits list http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6bc053b7 I would suggest that it is solely Joffe who goes in the infobox. The fact that Rollins and Joffe both collected the Oscar can be noted elsewhere in the article. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's true that according to the usual standards of the infobox we should hew closely to the film's credits. The article can show more nuance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Joffe alone won the 1977 Academy Award for Best Picture, as the article correctly says. Every source I've seen agrees on that. Who went up on the stage might be interesting, but it doesn't determine who won or is credited. The L.A. Times obit said ''He (Joffe) and Rollins remained partners through the late 1980s, when they each decided to focus on a single client. Rollins became an executive producer for David Letterman while Joffe mainly handled Allen and produced his films.'' - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No one disputes who was on the Oscar, so that requires no citation. But in Woody's own words, he described them as his "producers". The most authoritative source in English (NY Times) lists Rollins as a producer, as does IMDb. The late 80s is after Annie Hall was made, so that is perhaps more probative that they shared the work on Annie Hall. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would you say the NYT is the most authoritative source? Better than the film's credits? There is agreement at WP:FILM and Template:Infobox film that the AFI and BFI are much better, and they only list Joffe as producer. From my experience the NYT is disorganized when it comes to film credits, and has gotten them wrong more than once. And the L.A. Times obit was talking about Joffe's time with Woody from the 1960s into the 1980s. Joffe only took "Produced by" credit in 1969 and the 1970s. After that he always shared executive producer credit with Rollins, while the line producer got "Produced by" credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If we had only one source for all subjects, NY Times would probably be the one, so it's the most authoritative. Your attempt to dismiss it is not a signal you are trying to be accurate. Still, I agree with you that any source may be wrong, including the Times. Film credits are sometimes wrong and they can't be corrected. Plus, your citation above -- the source you chose to support your view -- actually says that Rollins stopped producing Allen's films a decade after the making of Annie Hall. It is possible that Rollins produced the film with Joffe but they agreed for their own reasons that Joffe's name would go on the credits. We don't know. But if it is true that Rollins was producing Allen's films into the 80s, then he was a producer on Annie Hall. Do we have other evidence on this? I am quite sincere in my interest in having this correct. If Rollins did not work on the film as Producer, of course only Joffe should be named. But when the award was given for Best Picture, Rollins went to the stage. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you even read what I wrote above? There is agreement at WP:FILM and Template:Infobox film that the AFI and BFI are the best sources. They're referred to all the time. I don't recall anyone there turning to the NYT as a better source for any film data. I already said the LA Times was talking about their whole history, not just the 1980s, though its wording in that sentence is a bit ambiguous. Nevertheless Joffe was not "producing" films in the 1980s, but he did take sole producing credit from the first Allen film on through much of the 70s. So that's what it's talking about. But I'm quite tired of debating with you, your WP:Uncivility, and your insulting, slanderous edit summaries - as can be seen at your history. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing ambiguous about the material you quoted from the LA Times. It says Rollins was a producer until the late 80s. I asked for your source and that was the one you provided. So now you introduce two significant beliefs of yours: Joffe was not producing films in the 80s and he took the only producing credit on the Allen films from the period including Annie Hall. Yet, we also know that Rollins was sometimes a producer on these films. Allen calls them "my producers" and the LA Times says Rollins stopped producing much later. So then my question to you: what is the evidence that Rollins was not a producer for Annie Hall if the film credit was inaccurate for all the movies before Annie Hall and for at least several movies after it? You seem to say that the film credit is inaccurate but we should follow it anyway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I worry that this discussion is getting a little bit too personal and going over the same points again and again, so let me just quickly offer my opinion. The fact that the on-screen credit, AFI, BFI, and the Academy Awards all acknowledge Joffe as the sole producer is overwhelming evidence that he should be the only one listed in the infobox. If anyone thinks it important to mention somewhere in the prose of the article, it would not be a problem to say something like "the film was produced by Charles H. Joffe for Rollins and Joffe Productions, a company headed by Joffe and Jack Rollins." If there are several reliable sources that list Rollins as a producer it would also not be a problem to add after that something like "Rollins is sometimes listed as being a co-producer on the film". But unless someone can find a source that says something explictly like "despite not getting an official 'producer' credit on the film, Jack Rollins did some of the production work" he should not be named in the infobox. 99.192.89.169 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. We are not repeating ourselves actually, so I don't know what you mean. GFilm's last post had two new things he thought were relevant, and we are discussing the meaning of the LA Times passage. We aren't in a hurry here. On the substance, the point to keep in mind is that some sources follow the screen credits pro forma, whether they are accurate or not. A screen credit can't be corrected after the fact, so if Rollins was an uncredited producer on previous films, there is reason to accept the sources that say he was a producer on this one, too. For example, IMDb has the following producer credits for Rollins through 1986:

1986 Hannah and Her Sisters (executive producer) 1985 The Purple Rose of Cairo (executive producer) 1984 Broadway Danny Rose (executive producer) 1983 Zelig (executive producer) 1982 A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (executive producer) 1982 The Marx Brothers in a Nutshell (TV documentary) (producer) 1980 Stardust Memories (executive producer) 1979 Manhattan (producer) 1978 Interiors (producer - uncredited) 1977 Annie Hall (producer) 1976 The Front (executive producer - uncredited) 1973 Sleeper (executive producer - uncredited) 1973 The Ted Bessell Show (TV movie) (producer) 1972 Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask (producer - uncredited) 1971 Bananas (executive producer) 1969 Don't Drink the Water (producer) 1969 The Kraft Music Hall (TV series) (executive producer - 1 episode) – The Woody Allen Special (1969) (executive producer) 1969 Take the Money and Run (producer - uncredited)

Note that they differentiate producer and executive producer. Note the five uncredited mentions. Note that he is listed as an uncredited producer both before and after Annie Hall. Fandango's filmography of Rollins has the same producer credits.

Now, is the IMDb wrong? Possibly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What IMDb says is utterly meaningless. They get things very badly wrong all the time. The most telling evidence in this case is the fact that Rollins was not listed as a producer for the Academy Awards. If he actually was a producer of the film, I find it mind boggling that he would not make sure that his name was included in the nomination so he could get an Oscar. Or if there was some reason his name got left off by accident or because he was being denied his rightful credit, then surely there would have to be some source out there somewhere talking about the "controversy" of him not being awarded an Oscar. Short of that, the only explanation that makes any sense at all is that in 1977 the film credit got it right and the Academy got it right and the erroneous credit subsequently crept into news stories because his name as part of the production company was on the film and he was a producer for other films. Hollywood people take credit and awards seriously, so much so that I cannot believe that he could have been denied an Oscar he would have deserved if he had been a producer and in the last 35 years never said anything about it. 99.192.50.154 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.89.169)


 * I agree entirely. Ring Cinema says We aren't in a hurry here. He has a long history of edit warring and drawing out debates endlessly. I consider this closed. There is no logical reason for him to continue pursuing this, though I expect he will. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, GFilm, you don't agree entirely, since you suggested we consult IMDb back when you thought it agreed with you (check your edit summary on 5 Jan: "This flawed NYT source does not overcome the film's actual credits, the poster, the IMDb, AFI, etc.") So, yeah, another dishonest claim by GFilm and unfortunately another occasion when he is not terribly interested in getting the facts correct in an article.


 * Now, as to the substance of the matter: is it true as 99 says above that there is no explanation for Rollins not receiving an Oscar if he was one of the producers? Well, no, it's easy to find an explanation: he was not a credited producer. The Academy doesn't go back and try to correct its mistakes, so that is an unrealistic expectation. That's not how it works. Should the article on Annie Hall be accurate about who actually produced the film, even if the credits are incomplete? Yes, it should be. So, as long as we are all committed to getting the facts right, we should acknowledge that Rollins is widely known to have worked as an uncredited producer both before and after Annie Hall. If there is some reason to think that Annie Hall was different, what is the reason? GFilm's source says that Rollins stopped working directly on Allen's films in the 80s sometime. That is after Annie Hall was completed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ring, you have not really addressed my comments. Your theory is that the Academy made a mistake and so Rollins was not awarded an Oscar that he actually deserved, yet you do not provide any evidence that this is true. Show me a single source in the last 35 years where Rollins or someone else says "Rollins should have been awarded an Oscar but was not due to his name erroneously being left off the list of producers of the film". If that story is true, it needs a source and surely in 35 years someone would have said that. You also have not explained how Rollins allowed the error to happen in the first place. It does not seem plausible that he was eligible for an Oscar and did not make sure that his name was on the nomination in the first place. But again, should that unlikely event have happened, surely he or someone else would have commented on it in the last 35 years. Where is the source for that? In fact, there is not a single source that mentions that he was ever erroneously denied "producer" credit, even without mentioning the Oscars. How is it possible that this happened, yet no one has ever commented about it? The much more simple and logical explanation is that it did not happen but, as I said before, the fact that he was partners with Joffe and produced other Woody Allen films has lead to newspapers mistakenly giving him the extra credit.


 * I should also point out that you have misread the LA Times obituary. It does not say that Rollins stopped working directly on Allen's films in the 80s sometime. It only says that Rollins and Joffe "remained partners through the late 1980s", which is a very different claim. No one disputes that they were partners when Annie Hall was made.


 * But, like I said in my first comment, it is starting to look again like we are just going over the same points again and again now. I don't see that there is much more to add unless you can add a source explicitly saying that Rollins deserved a producer credit but was initially denied it. Short of that the best source is the primary source, which says he was not a producer. 99.192.83.116 (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.50.154 & 99.192.89.169)


 * Pace my above comment, I do have one more thing to add. I noticed that the article cites Eric Lax's biography of Allen and I remembered that I have a copy of the 1992 paperback edition of it, so I looked up what it might say on the producer issue. On p.287 he writes, "All Woody Allen pictures are billed as 'A Jack Rollins - Charles H. Joffe Production' and Joffe was the on-set producer of four of the films through Manhattan." Then at the end of the book there is a section called "Filmograpgy" which lists Allen's films and the credits. On pages 378 and 379, for each of Love and Death, Annie Hall, Interiors, and Manhattan, it says "Producer: Charles H. Joffe for Jack Rollins and Charles H. Joffe Productions". Those would be the four films he was referring to. The evidence that Rollins was not a producer, but his name appears in the production company name resulting in some news sources being confused seems very strong. 99.192.83.116 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fantastic. Thanks for finding some actual evidence from a good source. I really appreciate it. Now we have the evidence we need to have the article correct. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Films set in the 1940s; Films set in the 1960s
Annie Hall is grouped into both of these categories. After viewing the film I see no indication that it takes place in any year other than 1977.


 * What says "1977"? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Awards and any accompanying title designation ?
According to the following Awards should be used and stand alone without "and Honors." What is the correct form on this:

NOTE: From The English Patient, the edit summary of a very involved wikian: "Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,948 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (→‎Awards And Honors: Rm. " And Honors" from sub-heading See WP:MOS) (undo)"

Would someone of this caliber do something contrary to WP? I would hope not.76.170.88.72 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
Thanks for edit warring, rather than bothering to use the talk page. In terms of cast recruitment, see WP:FILMCAST:
 * 1. "A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section."
 * 2. Production: pre-production: recruitment of the most important artists (cast and crew) and shooting preparations

- SchroCat (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what it says later in the style guide. Read section 4.3. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For example: "The real-world context about actors and their roles may vary by film. Real-world context may be about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast for the role, and what preparations were necessary for filming. Development of a film article means a basic cast list may evolve into a bulleted list with several sentences devoted to each person. In other cases, a list may be maintained and be accompanied by prose that discusses only a handful of cast members."

And you were doing the warring, since I was returning to the status quo.

Now, if it throws you off that the word 'Casting' is used, that can be changed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 4.3 is what I quoted from.... "A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section." There seems to be an awful lot of reverting going on with this article and I'm not altogether surprised it failed a GA if some of the basics can't be followed. The lead, for example, is too short to cover all the salient points of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You quoted from 4.3 and from 4.5. I'm afraid you aren't following the basics correctly. According the MoS, Cast is a separate section as we have it. According to MoS, the casting of the film can be included under pre-production, but it's not required. So the article is correct as we have it.

(By the way, speaking of basics, you completely butchered the quote in your first post above. Very strange that you made it seem that 1. and 2. above are next to each other in the MoS. Are you trying to be deceptive? Busted. There is nothing that says "2. Production: pre-production: recruitment of the most important artists (cast and crew) and shooting preparations". Why did you try to make it look like those were in the same section? --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not being deceptive and I didn't butcher the quote, so you can fuck off with the accusation. I raised two points and numbered them accordingly: that's bloody obvious, so don't try and play stupid games. Read it properly, and I quote in full from the MoS for those too stupid or lazy to read properly:


 * Production
 * The "Production" section can be organized into four parts, coinciding with the chronology of a film's creation (see the Filmmaking article):
 * development: development of the concept and script, as well as the securing of financing and producers
 * pre-production: recruitment of the most important artists (cast and crew) and shooting preparations
 * production or filming: actual filming – dates and places, important artistic decisions, and noteworthy events (delays, reshoots, financial problems, etc.)
 * post-production: completion of special effects, musical scoring and sound, and editing
 * This section should be structured to fit the available content: for example, if there is sufficient material about each topic, the section could be organized into subsections (such as "Development" and "Filming"); some topics may be interlinked, for instance, to handle situations when a film has different writers attached throughout its development. Thoughts from the cast and crew can be interwoven into this section, but such content should be substantive and avoid a promotional tone (especially during a film's marketing campaign).


 * Oh look, the words as I quoted them, oh look, you've accused me of lying incorrectly. I look forward to the withdrawal of your smear. - SchroCat (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry that you're wrong, but you are. So be it. A separate Cast section is explicitly included as an option in the guide, word for word. So you're just plain wrong. It also says information about the cast members can be included in that section. Word for word. So you're just plain wrong. So you made a bunch of snarky comments when you were mistaken. Okay, that's what happened. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No Schro isn't wrong Ring. You're going against general MoS guidelines whether you like it or not. I appreciate the work you've done on the article but it really has to comply with the norm on here otherwise other editors are going to do it anyway. All I have to do is restore that paragraph to the lead summarizing the article (not trivial as you say as there's a theme section on it) and it would pass GA. I'm not going to have my effort on this hampered over something so minor.♦  Dr. Blofeld  07:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, he is wrong and no, I'm not going against the guidelines. Whether you like it or not. Sorry, but the MoS says a Cast section is fine as written and that has exactly zero bearing on GA. If you lack the experience with film articles to know that, you should take a step back until you have it. The paragraph you are discussing is quite trivial and doesn't belong in the lede. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Cast section, not casting, which always comes under production in film articles.♦  Dr. Blofeld  21:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, it's not #2 following your #1. So I was precisely accurate and you were mistaken. As you know now, this article is organized entirely in keeping with the MoS, despite your completely erroneous and quite snarky remarks to the contrary. No problem, you've been corrected. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ?? I have no idea what your understanding of the above is, but your lies have not "corrected" anything. There is a massive ownership problem on this article and you are the cause of it. We have an MoS to fall back on when there is dispute on how to proceed and you are failing to get close to it,insisting that your own version is some how better, even when numerous editors have told you otherwise and when the MoS contradicts everything you are saying. I suspect ANI won't be too far away from you if you keep up the posturing on this, - SchroCat (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I have the MoS on my side and you don't, but that's how it is. There's no ownership problem at all, just an ordinary difference of opinion getting worked out. Sorry, again, that the MoS does not back you up on this issue. As it says: " A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries". And it says: " Development of a film article means a basic cast list may evolve into a bulleted list with several sentences devoted to each person. In other cases, a list may be maintained and be accompanied by prose that discusses only a handful of cast members." That is exactly what I am proposing and how this article has been for a long time, with many editors contributing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

From the MoS: "Development of a film article means a basic cast list may evolve into a bulleted list with several sentences devoted to each person. In other cases, a list may be maintained and be accompanied by prose that discusses only a handful of cast members." --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You do not have the MoS "on your side", nor do you own this article, which you seem to think is the case. You have reverted the information at least four times. Once more and I'll happily report you. I'm stepping away from this, because dealing with such an entrenched owner of an article is never a happy experience. Well done for ensuring the article will not,grow beyond your mediocre ability. - SchroCat (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing too? Not at all helpful or constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither is essentially asking someone to be a meat-puppet for you so you can get the revert you want (but are now unable to do on your own). 3RR is supposed to tie an editor's hands for a reason, Ring. Ever hear of disruption?  -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  00:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Should lead summarise article?
Ring Cinema removed a paragraph from the lead which summarizes a large section of the article by dismissing it as trivia here. I'm, told that in order for it to be reinstated on a protected article we need consensus here to readd it? Ring has argued that the lead doesn't need to summarize the article. User:TonyTheTiger said the same thing during the review and Ring again rejected the idea. WP:Lead says otherwise, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. Thoughts people? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No particular theme is so important to deserve special mention in the first section, since we summarize the nature of the film in the first paragraph, implying the real themes of the film: the nature of love and relationships. (Let me mention that you misquote me: I didn't say it's trivia, did I. No, I said it's "somewhat trivial", and for the lead section that is true.) The matter of Allen's feelings about New York are already given too much prominence in the article. I don't think it is the most important theme yet it's placed first in the Themes section. The film is not much about New York (cf. Manhattan (film)) except tangentially and the commentators recognize that. The idea that each and every minor point made later deserves mention in the lede is not a good recipe for a coherently organized article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the sexuality and Jewish and Psychoanalysis themes are given more attention. The lead paragraph I had didn't just mention location but psychoanalysis as well. The lead should be a concise version of the article. If we have a lengthy section we should at least have a sentence or two about it in the lead. I just really think this article deserves to be promoted to GA after your hard work on it, and as it stands you're the only one stopping it from being promoted. Can't we try to come to a compromise on this? If you just let our minor dispute over where the casting should be and this paragraph in the lead rest the page block can be lifted and Krimuk can do the review and we'll have it at GA by the end of the week. It is really that much of a big deal?♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to fix something, fix the Themes section so that the film's more prominent themes of love and loss are emphasized. Then the lede will comport with the article and satisfy everyone. Every minor point taken up in the body does not deserve mention in the lede. If you read the commentators, I believe you will find that the film's main subject matter (one type of theme) is the the nature of love. The other "themes" (in the sense of repeated motifs) are the others you mention. So, unfortunately, the lede's correct summary of the film's subject is distorted in the Themes section and now you are trying to bring that error into the lede under a misguided wish to satisfy standards that aren't worth anything in the first place. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.sparknotes.com/film/anniehall/themes.html

"How fitting then that Annie Hall’s theme—in spite of the miserably unfair world that Allen discusses at length—settles on love being the answer. What makes life worth living, Allen argues, are those brief moments of happiness that occur in our endless pursuit of love. In the end, after Alvy and Annie have broken up and moved on from one another, Alvy resolves that lasting relationships are almost impossible, and yet life without love is no life at all." http://www.deepfocusreview.com/reviews/anniehall.asp


 * As it currently stands this should not pass GAN because the lead does not get close to summarising what follows. There are a number of themes in the body that have no mention in the lead, which can and should how by another few sentences to ensure it complies with basic MoS requirements. - SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fix the Themes section. The idea that each and every minor point mentioned in the body of the article should be mentioned in lead is obviously mistaken, so we can ignore that. And if you erroneously think that's what GA requires, GA is worthless anyway so we can ignore GA and improve the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If you weren't a gutless coward you'd have reported it by now. I'm out of this discussion while you're being so childish. I provided the link to report on Gareth's page: use it or shut the fuck up. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I take this as an admission that the best compromise involves a fix on the Themes section. I am in agreement with that course of action. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, obviously I have not said that and it would be a lie to claim it as such. From your lack of filing at the sock puppet investigation forum, I will take that as a withdrawal of your uncivil, petty and cowardly accusation. - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It is your opinion that GA is worthless, fine, you're entitled to think that. But I don't think it is worthless and I have every right to edit the article and promote it to GA. I get a very strong sense of ownership issues from you Ring Cinema and a tremendous feeling that you're incredibly arrogant and stubborn, always right about everything, are you a Leo by any chance? It really isn't your place to hamper editors from promoting articles to GA. The article is as much mine as it is yours. Search for Annie Hall in google books and you'll find a health balance of scholarly discussions about love/sex, psychoanalysis and Jewish identity, enough anyway to constitute the coverage in the article and a basic summary of the main themes in the lead. You've been wrong about everything so far!! I wonder how many people agree with you Ring that the lead shouldn't summarise the article? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead section needs to mention the themes per MOS:LEAD since the "Themes" section makes up a good part of this article. Is there a middle ground we can find here, using only 1-2 sentences? To use an example, the Featured Article American Beauty (film) has a big "Critical analysis" section and has one sentence (at the end of the first paragraph in the lead section) to summarize that section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema's answer to that would be simply to nuke most of the themes section just so it doesn't have to be added to the lead Erik. That isn't right is it?♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The main theme is already covered in the first paragraph. I would suggest correcting the problem in the Themes section first as the best compromise. New York City is a symbol, psychoanalysis is a motif at best. The main theme is the nature of love or relationships or is love real, etc. That is covered in the summary of the film, and that is adequate. Perhaps it is bothersome to some that it is handled relatively deftly and efficiently, but that is a virtue. There's no need to drag in material that is relatively trivial to pad the section and prove we are summarizing later sectiosn. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This could be tacked onto the end of the second paragraph:

"Like in many of Allen's other films, the nature of love is a central theme of Annie Hall, and it contains motifs such as psychoanalysis and retrospection, laced with humor. Allen's character of Alvy Singer is identified by scholars with the stereotypical neurotic Jewish male."♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, is your hang-up that the content in "Themes" should not be defined as themes? What if we emulate American Beauty and rename it to "Critical analysis"? That way, we can have a sentence similar to what American Beauty has in terms of what academics have stated about the film. In addition, MOS:LEAD states that we summarize the article body, in particular to encourage readers to read the full article. Readers will not know that there is a full-fleged "Themes"/"Critical analysis" section if we do not say anything about it in the lead section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's even mentioning themes in the lead which he is against. I told him that the lead at least has to mention it at the very least to effectively summarize the article as it is an important part of the coverage in books. Ring Cinema also disputed adding the casting section into production, that's what started the edit conflict, see the page history and the above section.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a good idea to characterize someone else's views, Blofeld, so don't try it again if you can't get it right. As I've mentioned before, I'm completely in favor of mentioning the major themes. I should mention that the edit conflict began because SchroCat didn't accept that, per BRD, my revert should have led to discussion, not his insistence that his reading of the MoS was the only rational one. I don't accept Erik's assertion that readers "will not know there is" a Themes section if it's unmentioned. Most film articles don't mention that and I think readers are savvy enough to look at the contents links. These are all red herrings. That said, I would like to propose a change to the first paragraph summary that I'm working on. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Produced by Allen's veteran manager, Charles H. Joffe, the film co-stars the director as Alvy Singer, who tries to figure out the reasons for the failure of his relationship with the title character, played by Diane Keaton in a role written specifically for her. Their demise as a couple leads to his contemplation of the film's central theme, the nature of love and relationships. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ring Cinema, MOS:LEAD says, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Since the "Themes" section makes up a good portion of the article body, the lead as a summary should mention this aspect of the article. If there are other articles that do not summarize a "Themes" section in their lead section, they may be oversights that need to be fixed. In addition, MOS:LEAD says, "Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article," which was why I mention that part of the guidelines. While the section is identified in the TOC, it is just the one word seen. The lead section is a space where we can have 1-2 sentences summarizing the "Themes" section to interest readers., do you have an opinion on what to do with the themes? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, Erik, the Themes section is not particularly important compared to other parts of the article. The main theme is the nature of love, if we properly define theme as the main subject of the film. And if trivial material is starting to dominate the article, that should be fixed immediately. I'll say again: the Themes section is very poorly written. It doesn't differentiate between the film's main subjects, its motifs, and its recurring tropes. These are three different ways to use the word theme and that needs to be fixed first. As soon as that is accomplished, my proposal will make good sense. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The themes section is the best part of the article!! Only you didn't write most of it so it's wrong obviously. You might have a point about changing the section title to critical analysis but it's not very poorly written at all. I've met some arrogant people in my time on wikipedia but I've rarely seen such a Know-it-all!! Unbelievable. This is wikipedia, not your book. Start compromising with people or go away. This one-minded stubborn approach to encyclopedia-building is contrary to what is expected here This is a public resource, not solely your own. Somehow you seem to see yourself as some sort of authority on the films of Woody Allen. It is your opinion only that themes aren't important. Hundreds of books indicate otherwise, all mentioning the same issues which are discussed in the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to recommend that everyone commenting here find sources to support their views, as I have done. Everyone knows this movie is about the nature of love and relationships, and they say so. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ring Cinema, what about re-titling "Themes" to "Critical analysis"? We do not need to apply the label of themes to the sub-topics under that section. We can state that academics have noted the contrast in the settings of New York City and Los Angeles, the stereotype of gender differences in sexuality, the presentation of Jewish identity, and the elements of psychoanalysis and modernism. That would come after the general statement of the film's general theme. It would encapsulate that section per the lead section guidelines. Why do you think we should not mention these elements at all in the lead section? Do you dislike the academic sources, or just the way the summaries of these sources are presented in the article? I don't think it means that we can't have a sentence in the meantime. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are you trying to cram that material into the lead? The film is overwhelmingly understood to be about the nature of love, as a thematic matter. Is there some reason we should falsify that or ignore what every meaningful critic has said on the matter? Why aren't you trying to cram into the lede that Keaton's clothes were widely copied or that Star Wars was predicted to win the major awards? I think it is easy to see that some things are important and some things are left for more detailed analysis. The material on psychoanalysis is based on one scene and a couple fleeting references. The whole movie declares throughout that it is trying to find out about love, literally from start to finish. Does it bother you to put that in the article? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it "cramming" material into the lead?? It's merely mentioning that those issues have been identified by scholars. You don't decide what is notable, the books do. There are tons of sources documenting psychoanalysis and which state it is a film about retrospection and love. It isn't just one scholar who discusses psychoanalysis and Jewish identity its many. And we could mention that Keaton's clothes in the film had an impact on fashion in the late 1970s. You're making a complete hash of this situation and it's completely unnecessary.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede should include major points, not everything mentioned later. We only include the actors who play major roles, not supporting players. By your logic, apparently all the actors in the movie should also be named in the lede section in order to properly "summarize" the article. And the problem in the first instance is the Themes section. First we should correct that monstrosity, then turn our attention to the lead. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal
In trying to build consensus, how about, in addition to the lead's comments regarding that the movie is about the search for love, we incorporate Erik's suggestion: "... that academics have noted the contrast in the settings of New York City and Los Angeles, the stereotype of gender differences in sexuality, the presentation of Jewish identity, and the elements of psychoanalysis and modernism"? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * SupportYup I'd be happy with that. Anybody else?♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I'd be happy with that too: it summarises a themes section that covers the aspects of the film that have been identified by numerous reliable sources. Although this may be, at face value, a love story, there are other important themes that the reliable sources have identified, and if we are to keep in line with WP:LEAD, we need to reflect this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support That sounds good to me. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Then we should also include the names of the entire cast, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see the sources on the idea that these are major themes. Can someone please find the writer who said that any of these matters are major themes of the film? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They are in the article, in the themes section, where everything is supported by reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here you go: . -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

From Winkelvi's "support", the first sentence: "The 1977 Best Picture-winner continued a number of themes that Allen had approached in previous films such as Bananas (1971), Sleeper (1973) and Love and Death (1975), wry explorations of romantic angst buoyed by his emphasis on the comic pitfalls that crop up on the path to happiness." So that counts on my side of the question. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the entire article link and you shall see that everyone's view here is supported. There is more than one major theme in the film.  Allen has never been superficial in his screenwriting.  There is always more than one major theme in his films.  Annie Hall is no exception. You wanted a reliable source that supports views on this other than you own and I provided it.  To cherry pick quotes is unhelpful and dishonest. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  16:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. Offer the quotes that you claim support your view. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would urge everyone commenting here to read the article that Winkelvi claims supports the proposal. Apparently it's his very best effort to find a source that says there are other major themes besides love and relationships. There is nothing in it about academics, New York, Los Angeles, stereotypes, sexuality, Jewish identity, psychoanalysis or modernism. In fact, none of these words even appear in the article. Yet Winkelvi claims this supports the proposal. Amazing! --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Roger Ebert: "one of the problems he keeps providing for himself is the problem of love. He falls in love too easily, to girls who are right for him in all the little ways and incompatible in all the big ones. His girls tend to reflect the stages he's going through. When he's an Adlai Stevenson liberal in the late 1950s, he marries another one. When he's a romantic ten or fifteen years later, he finds another one, a kookier one. His only trouble is that women are people, not stages.

The movie dares to go into this material a little more seriously and cohesively than is usually the case in an Allen film. Annie Hall is a comedy, yes, and there are moments in it as funny as anything Woody has done, but the movie represents a growth on Allen's part. From a filmmaker who would do anything for a laugh, whose primary mission seemed to be to get through the next five minutes, Allen has developed in Sleeper, Love and Death, and this film into a much more thoughtful and (is it possible?) more mature director." --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Vincent Canby: " "Annie Hall," a comedy about urban love and incompatibility" --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Joseph McBride: "In his idiosyncratic, comic terms, what Allen is attempting here is not so much different from what his favorite director, Ingmar Bergman, did in “Scenes From A Marriage.” This film could be called “Scenes From A Relationship.” Allen and Keaton go through just about all the emotional changes one could expect from an intelligent contemporary couple, only in this case the anguish is masked by the surface bravery of Allen’s wisecracking and Keaton’s deft retorts."


 * Not sure how this was deleted in the last posting, but I'll repeat: - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and other sources identify other themes. No one is denying that one of the themes is love, but there are others too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You have no source to back the idea that something else is a major theme? I am not surprised. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As per the above, there are sources in the article, and please keep the snarkiness out of your comments: it's not helpful to anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still have no sources to support the idea that something else is a major theme? When will you give us the sources that say these other things are major themes? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Tim Radford: "A film which sticks close to the cutting edge of love, and darts about daringly trying to make philosophical sense of it, is bound to be flawed. This one is, because Allen tried to do in 93 minutes what Proust needed 11 volumes for: to resolve life, love and the passing of both." --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

TV Guide: "Seminal, hilarious look at contemporary relationships." --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the proposal. The lead should summarize the body of the article. It is of course a romantic comedy about a failed relationship, as stated early in the lead. The body also includes several long paragraphs on Themes: Location, Sexuality and Jewish identity, Psychoanalysis and modernism. These have well-sourced content. The themes should also be mentioned in the lead. I think the proposed addition will clear the article for GA. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that identify those other themes as major? Or are you saying that each and every minor point no matter how trivial should be mentioned again in the lead section? In that case, I expect you to support a proposal to include the entire cast list in the lead. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Penelope Gilliatt: "Annie Hall goes further than any other Woody Allen film in the purity of its romanticism. This is a love story told with piercing sweetness and grief, for all its funniness." --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a love story, but it also has some very notable "motifs" like psychoanalysis and Jewish identity which are widely discussed by notable film scholars. Just look in google books. These are valuable components of the article and the lead should at least summarize in a line what scholars go into hundreds of pages about over many books. All we need is to rename the Themes section Critical analysis to avoid implying all are equal "themes". ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Motifs are not themes, so I agree. Your claim that these secondary matters are widely discussed should be supported with sources. Please provide the many sources. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Too many sources to list here but the sources are in the themes section and the lead doesn't need sourcing. Demonstrate multiple reliable sources which discusses these motifs are important to the film? Peruse the various hits: Gender, Psychoanalysis, Jewish, Neuroticism etc. In fact most sources I found in google books about Annie Hall mention one or more of these issues more than they do actually discussing the filming of the movie or its success. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not too many to list here. I notice one was a high school study guide anonymously authored. Another was SparkNotes? Rather weak when I'm citing major publications. As I have been saying, the Themes section is badly butchered, with weak sourcing and distinct lack of understanding about the difference between theme, motif, symbol and trope. That should be rewritten before the lead is infected with the same inferior material. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak??? There's enough reliable scholarly material in those links to sink a battleship!! Themes is only "badly butchered" according to you because you didn't write it, and Ring Cinema is He-Man, Master of the Universe. Everybody else is always wrong and he's always right, the jedi master and Ring wraith/Sauron of world cinema. How dare lesser mortals interfere with the great one.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are offering film reviews. Others are offing more academic sources. Both play to different readerships and we balance the two. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ring Cinema, why can we not call the section "Critical analysis"? We would not be saying that these sub-topics are themes per se. They are instead parts of the film that have been critically analyzed by academics. This way, we can identify this set of sub-topics more accurately. If it needs rewriting (and I agree about replacing Spark Notes with something better), that still does not negate entirely the parts mentioned in the proposed sentence above. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

We should rewrite the Themes section first. That is for sure. After that, let's decide if we want to include the entire cast in the lead section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the Spark Notes source, I agree the name doesn't sound great but look in the google links I provided. That isn't trivial coverage is it Erik? All we'd need to do is replace the section title with "Critical analysis" and then immediately we don't confuse motifs and symbols and themes etc.. There's nothing wrong with the content in that section.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are relying on a high school study guide with no author. Again, which six sources support your view? I'm still interested to know on whom you rely. Name your sources and quote them as I have done. If you can't, perhaps you and Winkelvi are both claiming there is support where there is none. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm  not relying on a high school study guide. I didn't add that source and content supported by it. Check the article history. That source was there before I edited it and you edited it for years and didn't remove it. I only added decent book sources. I don't have to mention sources here. They're in the article which is a jolly sight better than it was before I edited it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I listed six sources and quoted a key passage from each. Winkelvi contributed a seventh. None of the proponents of this proposal have cited a single source to support their view. You claim there are many sources but have mentioned none. You disavow the source that was practically plagiarized for the Themes section. Winkelvi claimed he had a source but he couldn't even find a source that mentioned in passing these other themes. So it is really looking like there is no support for the proposal from any source at all. Do you have 7? I have 7. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about and I can see you're not the sort in which discussion resolves issues. Any decent editor reading this and seeing the article can see that it's well-sourced and you have little argument for anything other than changing the section title to Critical Analysis.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This seems a very one-sided argument, where is disagreeing with everyone else. The section on "Themes" is quite long, a significant part of the total article, and is well-sourced (references 35-53). It should therefore be summarized in the lead. Renaming it "Critical analysis" would not affect that. If  can gain consensus for removing this section, then of course it does not need to be summarized in the lead. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And proportionately the length of the themes section is proportionate to what is documented in reliable books covering the film and that's the way it should be of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

cont d

 * Wikipedia is supposed to follow sources and the lede section isn't a place to mention every minor point that is made anywhere in the article. Perhaps those who have supported the proposal should reconsider in light of the discussion. Just as we don't include the entire cast in the lead section, we don't need to include every single minor point in the Themes section. As the sources say, there is one major theme (the nature of love), just as there are two major stars (Hall and Keaton). So, if there are sources that support the view that something besides love is a major theme, they should definitely be mentioned at this time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Already been done above: Gender, Psychoanalysis, Jewish, Neuroticism, let alone the large number in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And it's not as if you have a clear cut case Ring for saying they're not themes, I suggest you check out this source which says Critics have pointed out the extent to which Freud and psychoanalysis are "a perennial theme" in Annie Hall. Theme, not motif. That source proves you're wrong. Author Mary P. Nicholls is a professor and specialist in politics and film at the Department of Political Science, Baylor University, hardly a high school student. The perennial theme of Freud and psychoanalysis in Annie Hall constitutes a self-conscious assertion of how humor by Sam B. Girgus here Jewish/Gentile relations serve as the work's theme here. Not just described as theme but perennial theme. I suggest we leave the themes section as it is and simply add Rosie's sentencing to the lead and try to replace that Spark Notes source which does look a bit dodgy granted.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Anything significant in the article should be summarized in the lead. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">TALK 17:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence these minor themes are significant? Be specific. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * She doesn't need to be specific, the truckloads of sources indicating they're important themes to the movie are right in front of your eyes above!! Perennial theme, not minor theme!!! Here's further proof "Annie Hall was Allen's breakthrough film. It introduced, for the first time in a serious manner, many of the most important philosophical themes that would concern Allen throughout the next two decades. These themes include the following:" Check out this. All cited as important not minor!! When are you going to admit fault? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything that has significant coverage in the article (in any article), should be in the lead to summarize the article, it's what it's there for. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">TALK 17:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you are misstating my view, Blofeld. Do we include the entire cast in the lede section? No, we include only the major stars. Okay, what are the major themes of this movie? Let's go to the sources on that. Finally, proponents have offered some sources to answer my 7. We can review the evidence now to see if it holds up. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We could mention that the film co stars a few people and mention names but the film is really centred around Woody and Diane, or would you dispute that too? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that obviously. Just as we put the major stars in the lede, we put the major themes in the lede. Not every last theme anyone ever thought of. The major themes. And in this case it's easy to see what they are. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's keep this simple. Each section in the body of any article should be covered to some extent in the lead. The sections describe significant aspects of the subject. This proposal is for minimal coverage, basically just the section titles. The question of whether the sections are relevant, well-sourced, correctly named etc. is separate. If the topics exist as sections in the body, they belong in the lead. Removing or reworking the sections should be a separate discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not true. We don't put the entire cast in the lede section, we list the major stars. Should we mention every single point made anywhere in the article in the lede? No, of course not. Now, how do we differentiate the major themes from the minor? Consult the sources, as we do on Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the first source on Gender listed above. I don't see where this author lists this as even a theme, much less a major theme. Please quote something that author says that indicates this is a major theme of the film. Not a major theme of her piece, but a major theme of the film Annie Hall. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

From the selection on psychoanalysis, a reader writes "His insight seems deep since he presents many theories in psychoanalysis and feminism. But I think those barely have connections with Allen's films." --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a theme. That's all that matters.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The selection from American Jewish Filmmakers does not say that Judaism is a major theme, only mentioning that it is concerned with several American Jewish issues. Of course, Singer's Jewishness is found throughout the film because he is Jewish. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's obvious. Jewish identity and being an outsider is clearly a notable theme of the film. I need say no more. That you still dispute this given the wealth of sources I've demonstrated above shows your true colours on this and you've made it very clear that no reasoning with you will change your mind. Well tough luck, because any decent editor here who wants to see wikipedia improve and important articles promoted to GA are unlikely to support your outlook. I suggest you stop trying to wrong a right and go improve Chinatown which I see you've begun on, that would be more worth your time and effort. You're embarrassing yourself continuing to dispute this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not only is it not obvious, it's wrong. But you are not the one to say, Blofeld, any more than it is my role to say that it isn't. We should go by the sources. I'm definitely interested in improving this article, that's why I'm trying to keep the nonsense of the Themes section to a minimum.


 * I haven't read anyone except for Michael Tueth make a case that neuroticism is a theme of any kind, and I'm not sure from what he's written that he would agree that's what he's saying. He seems to say that it is a "neurotic comedy" and refers to neurosis as a "motif" (p. 141). He seems to support the idea that love is a major theme when he quotes approvingly from Julian Fox (apparently): "The film notes that sexual attraction fades, people have serial romancees, Alvy himself has two failed marriages, Annie loses interest in sex and cannot relax without taking marijuana, puts Alvy off, or, giving in, endures the act by detaching her attention. The film's bravery in confronting the realities of modern love culminates in its ending, which insists that the couple, though meeting again and enjoying each other's company, does not ultimately reform." --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you're not interested in improving the article then because on the weight of the sources you'd not dismiss what is currently written in the themes section as nonsense. The article would degrade by removing it, anybody here aside from yourself can see that it's a legitimate section which deserves at the very least to have one sentence summarizing it in the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The question is, "Should the lead summarize the article?" and the answer of course is yes. @: Since you think the Themes section is "nonsense" you may want to improve it. But since you are the only one with that view, first get consensus on your proposed changes in a new section on this page. In the meanwhile, the lead should summarize the article, including the lengthy section on Themes. The reason is not that the section on Themes is well sourced and covers an important aspect of the subject. The reason is that it is a large part of the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah but in saying that Ring would simply chop the themes section back to a short paragraph just so it wouldn't have to mentioned in the lead. What he's trying to argue I think is that the themes section shouldn't be pretty long and informative and should be short just mentioning love so as a result the lead wouldn't need to mention it. That's not right. The weight of coverage in that article as it is is reflective of the weight of coverage of the issues in books. Most books documenting Amnie Hall in fact talk about those themes/issues whatever more than actual production of the film.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that "themes" deserves significant coverage. This is more than a simply romantic comedy about people falling into and out of love. Those are a dime a dozen. The movie is enriched by the other themes that run through it: notably Allen's musings on Brooklyn Jewish angst and neurosis illustrated by the contrast between the two characters. I would resist efforts to strip it down and remove well-sourced content on relevant aspects. But that should be discussed in a different section. This one is about whether the lead should include a summary of this section as it is now. There is consensus that it should. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Blofeld, your attempts to predict my views are offensive to your mental capacity. I'm going to ask you to apologize and not repeat your obvious error again. I'll respond after you get that accomplished. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for an apology for the socking accusation, but I'm not clamouring for it because it's not constructive to reaching agreement on the lead or themes section, so perhaps if wod be better if we all focused on that instead? - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Blofeld can apologize now. It's not the first time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not after an apology (little vhance, and it means nothing), but my comment was designed more to focus discussion on the more pertinent mRters in hand. - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Aymatth2, I agree with you that Themes should be well covered. My objection here is not that the material in Themes should be out, simply that it's relatively unimportant for the lede. As I've mentioned before, the word 'theme' has more than one use, conflated in this article and poorly organized. Theme can mean 'main idea', 'motif', 'trope', etc. That's why Erik is suggesting we separate them into more specific categories, which is sensible. It is really very clear what the main theme of the film is. The evidence is before us. Now, if you want to contribute to making better sense of it in the article, that would be great for the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Post-protection
I see fairly strong consensus (though not unanimity) above for the addition of the sentence proposed by Erik to the lead section. There has been less discussion of the placement of the "Casting" section, but for now there is a weaker consensus to leave it at its current location as a subsection of Production. The content of the Themes section has been raised in the section by Aymatth2 below and should continue to be discussed there. For the moment, I am going to unprotect the article and add Erik's sentence to the lead. All that said: if I see further edit-warring here, and/or a continuation of the personalization, accusations, and attacks above, I am far more likely to consider blocks as an option alongside or even instead of protection, depending on circumstances. If you disagree with my reading of the above, or simply feel more opinions are needed, I would encourage you to open a RFC on the issue or pursue some other form of dispute resolution. Of course you should also discuss concerns and proposals here, particularly for the issue raised below. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Moving on
The debate above is not about the plot, the production or the reception. It is about the analysis of the movie. At one extreme is the view that nothing in the "themes" section deserves mention in the lead. Annie Hall is just a standard romantic comedy. At the other extreme is the view that the "themes" section is the core of the article, since this is what distinguishes the film from thousands of others. This is to ask for views on how to resolve the issue. I suggest first discussing which sub-topics should be covered in the "Themes" section. After this has been resolved, and only then, we should discuss each of the assertions and sources in the "themes" section. A sentence-by-sentence approach. The end result would be a version that reflects consensus. Would another approach be more efficient? Thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A sandbox revised edition in the meantime might be a better way to go about it and then gain consensus for a given version. It's clear discussion with Ring isn't going to get us far. I'll work on User:Dr. Blofeld/Annie Hall and Ring can work on one in his sandbox if he really wants to. Aymatth or Erik etc is welcome to edit my version, obviously not Ring though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @: You can do that, but given the background I am very uncomfortable with making any changes without first carefully discussing the changes and obtaining consensus. Let's agree on the approach first. There is no urgency. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

OK no worries. I've pretty much done all I needed to. I strongly suggest that Ring makes his own version and exactly what he'd do and then we can compare  and discuss. Discussion with Ring without physical changes have proved to have got us nowhere. It was the discussion among ourselves which produced results. He still feels the same. what makes you think anything will change through a continued discussion with him? At least if we have a comparison to go on then we can discuss which elements of each version should be included and try to move forwards. I can see that Ring is unlikely to accept anything he doesn't agree with so I have a feeling it'll come down to a consensus to replace a given version. I on the otherhand am willing to compromise a little if the changes proposed aren't against basic MoS guidelines or make a severe hack of what I've written in the critical analysis section.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's very strange that you think discussion with me leads to nothing. I have repeatedly urged everyone to back their claims with sources as I have done. That is how Wikipedia works. Now, if the sources don't agree with you, I'd suggest you change your views about what should be in the article. I am following the sources. You are frustrated because I insist -- quite rightly -- that you back your claims with good sources. If it's too much bother, then let the rest of us handle it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I presented enough sources to back my claims to sink a battleship and you proceeded to ignore them!!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I responded to your sources and pointed out the problems with them. You didn't respond to that, I believe. Winkelvi said he had a source and it wasn't one at all. Your sources are all pretty dubious and capable of multiple interpretations. I asked you to back up your claims for a couple days before you finally took that minimal step, and then there were problems with them. So, if you seriously believe your sources are good -- the four that you listed next to my seven -- go back and defend them where I criticized them. That is discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue 1:First paragraph of Style
Another thing which I see Ring restored was the beginning of the style section which I'd copyedited to improve the flow:

My version:

Technically, the film had a considerable impact on Allen who considered Gordon Willis to be a "wizard" cinematographer, and he credits Willis and the film to be an important step in his maturity as a filmmaker. Despite the contrast in their styles, with Allen known for his hilarious farces and Willis known for his dark dramatic films like The Godfather, the two became friends during filming and continued the collaboration on several later films, including Zelig, which earned Willis his first Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography.

Existing version:

Technically, the film marked an advance for the director. He selected Gordon Willis as his cinematographer—for Allen "a very important teacher" and a "technical wizard," saying, "I really count Annie Hall as the first step toward maturity in some way in making films." At the time, it was considered an "odd pairing" by many, Keaton among them. The director was famous for "laugh machines" and hilarious farces, while Willis was known as "the prince of darkness" for work on dramatic films like The Godfather. Despite this, the two became friends during filming and continued the collaboration on several later films, including Zelig, which earned Willis his first Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography.


 * It's not my version, it's the current consensus. Blofeld, you changed the meaning, as I said. You don't know the difference between "the film marked an advance for the director" and "the film had an impact on the director"? Isn't it obvious to you the two are not the same? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't, you reverted me twice on it and there isn't a consensus on it yet as people here weren't aware of it. You have a point about "marked an advance" so how about:

Technically, the film marked an advance for the director Allen who considered Gordon Willis to be a "wizard" cinematographer, and he credits Willis and the film to be an important step in his maturity as a filmmaker. Despite the contrast in their styles, with Allen known for his hilarious farces and Willis known for his dark dramatic films like The Godfather, the two became friends during filming and continued the collaboration on several later films, including Zelig, which earned Willis his first Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography.

♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why take out that he was an important teacher? The original is just better, with more nice quotes and less of your opinion. For some reason, you take out Keating's opinion, which is interesting. What is superior about your draft? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"he credits Willis and the film to be an important step in his maturity as a filmmaker" pretty much states that doesn't it? I reworded it for flow more than anything, your version is 0.5 kb long than it really needs to be providing the same information.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not as well, and it makes it your opinion instead of his. Just inferior. The one thing I agree on is that it would be nice to find a replacement for "laugh machines". Vivid but strange. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts and suggestions from others on this please. There's nothing wrong with paraphrasing a few quotes in prose IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are making this ad hominem now instead of responding to my legitimate criticisms. Additionally, why are you dragging in "maturity"? That's not in the original. If you can improve the style without changing the meaning, that's good. Otherwise, the consensus version seems to be pretty good already and it's accurate, including all true statements without any OR. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus version. It just happened to be existing at the time of the lock. How about

Technically, the film marked an advance for the director. He selected Gordon Willis as his cinematographer—for Allen "a very important teacher" and a "technical wizard," saying, "I really count Annie Hall as the first step toward maturity in some way in making films." Despite the contrast in their styles, with Allen known for his hilarious farces and Willis known for his dark dramatic films like The Godfather, the two became friends during filming and continued the collaboration on several later films, including Zelig, which earned Willis his first Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography.

♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The current version is the consensus version. Maybe you didn't know that. If you have questions about how consensus works on Wikipedia, I would recommend WP:consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Why remove Keating's opinion and "prince of darkness", which is vivid and true. I don't see how you are trying to improve the paragraph. Do you just want to make a change for the sake of making a change? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest we change one sentence to this: "The director was famous for his comedies and farces, while Willis was known as "the prince of darkness" for work on dramatic films like The Godfather. " --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Updated it in User:Dr. Blofeld/Annie Hall. How's that? Not for the sake of it no, as I've explained below. Can you find a source for "Allen wrote a first draft of a screenplay within a four-day period, sending it to Brickman to make alterations."? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, your explanation doesn't seem to hold water. You want to "condense" which apparently means leaving things out that are interesting. And you offered a draft with a major problem. Since Allen and Willis were considered an odd pairing, perhaps it is fitting they are referred to as an odd pairing. Having things in the article that are true is not "problematic" (which is itself a vague objection), it's the opposite of vague, and it's not OR. So we agree on "laugh machines" and that can be the basis of a new consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * New to this discussion (and, full declaration, a regular WP colleague of Dr Blofeld). But in my view Dr B's version seems preferable. It conveys the same information without superfluity, and I support the shorter version. The quoting affects the flow of the text, and the sentence about odd pairing and laugh machines as Dr B says comes across as OR and, IMO, unencyclopaedic. Tim riley (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I doesn't convey the same information and nothing currently included is superfluous. The quotes make it clear who is the source of the opinion, which is actually quite significant in this case. That the director and the cinematographer were referred to as an odd pairing is a fact and it's up to the reader to decide what to make of it. What is really quite unencyclopedic is keeping interesting information from the readers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ring Cinema is of course entitled to have his/her views considered along with everyone else's, but I think "what is really quite unencyclopedic is keeping interesting information from the readers" slightly misses the point that it is our job as WP editors to write articles that home in on the essentials. "Interesting information" that is not central to the narrative can be footnoted, but oughtn't to obtrude into the main text. A footnote is always a possibility in such cases. Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Obtrude"? No, the facts don't obtrude. You seem intent on hiding from the readers that Diane Keaton agreed that Allen and Willis were an odd pairing. If you can't appreciate that the characterization of the two has more meaning when it comes from someone close to them, I think you have missed something very, very basic about what is dubious and what is credible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Taking a spin through Blofeld's sandbox version, I see that it's a great improvement on the previous failed attempts at GAN. I think we have to look at why the GANs failed to see where the article was lacking, and the sandbox version seems to cover most of the issues raised. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Blofeld has offered many edits and it's not uncommon for his changes to get the facts wrong. As for GA, Blofeld mentioned to me privately that those editors may not have the best ideas. That was the case most recently and he thought it best to have this article fail so another editor could be assigned to it. Personally, I'm interested in making the article better, and if GA articles are worse, the honorific is empty. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tony had some valid points actually, but yeah, I think he tends to overcook GA reviews to the point they end up being stalled and the review was in no man's land and clearly wasn't getting anywhere. I believe I've addressed most of the valid issues and improved it since and it's now ready for GA and if you can agree then the GA review can go ahead and it should pass fairly quickly. Common for me to get my facts wrong? Uh, where exactly? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the article has improved since the last failure; the format of the GA system ensures that articles are improved, not worsened and that has been the case since the last failure. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's improve the article. As it happens that may or may not lead to GA status. The previous GA editor didn't know what a paragraph is, quite literally, so there other things beside empty honorifics. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has been improved already and will pass GA as it stands. It can continue to be improved afterwards.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Look at the draft under discussion. You needed to be told that you'd changed the meaning. On March 11, I corrected you on at least four factual errors that you introduced, some of the mistakes as blatant as this one. You're not a careful reader. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop the personal attacks, Ring. There is absolutely no need for that sort of comment. This is a collaborative project, not a battleground. The JPS <sup style="color:purple;">talk to me  22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to police personal attacks, talk to the others. Perhaps it's bothersome that my comments are completely factual; I literally corrected him five times in one day. Now, I really don't want to hear from you again until you have told the others who attacked me personally that they are out of line. I expect you to handle that promptly. Let me know when you've accomplished that and we'll talk. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue 2:Themes/critical analysis
I've changed the section title to critical analysis even though many sources indicate most of them are perennial themes but I can understand Ring's view that some of them may be considered more motifs or devices. So a neutral title avoids any possible confusion, it addresses them purely as issues. My current version in User:Dr. Blofeld/Annie Hall also places the love section at the top as primary importance, addressing Ring's concerns that it is the central theme. My feeling is that we could probably introduce a bit more material on scholarly discussion of love and relationship and make it the longest sub section out of the lot and perhaps split Jewish identify later.

What do you dispute about what is currently in my sandbox version Ring? I've replaced that shoddy source as you suggested. All of the content discussed in it is well sourced and the issues in them whatever you want to call them are all widely discussed in multiple reliable sources. I make no claim about any of them formally being a theme or whatever, just addressed as issues. I'm sure some of them would be disputed on whether they're really themes, motifs or devices or whatever and my version makes no claim towards that, just documents what has been covered in reliable sourced on issues related to the film. We can say love is a central theme if you want to and can source that.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Kol mah Sh'Talmid vatik atid l'horot lifnei rabbo, kevar n'emar L'Moshe B'Sinai (Whatever a seasoned scholar is destined to innovate before his master was already revealed to Moses at Sinai,

Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 2.4). "The current version is the consensus version." is like saying that an apple is an apple. But the one in the fruit bowl on the dining room table is from the backyard tree and the one on display on the living room credenza is of wax. The destination is the goal but the journey is just as important. No need to criticize, have a concern, yes, but to criticize, well, no need to turn the milk sour so soon.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Broadcast television airings
Are there any articles about Annie Hall's presentations on broadcast television? I've seen it on ABC in the late 70's, Kansas City's KSHB TV41 (when it was a Fox affiliate) in the late 80's, and it's recently (early 2015) been shown a few times on the digital subchannel This TV. Each time it appears to have been shown unedited; every showing included some on-air advisory. This TV's advisory explicitly stated that the movie had not been edited for content.

I've always assumed that some contractual obligation existed that the movie be shown unedited, but haven't seen any detailed articles on the subject. And it appears that many of Allen's films (for United Artists, at least) have been shown unedited on basic cable channels. It would be relevant to the Annie Hall article (and the Wikipedia articles on Allen and his other films) if we could include that information. Just1thing (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Truman Capote
My recollection is Alvie is making jokes about people walking by, and just before the cut he says something like "There goes the winner of the Truman Capote look-alike contest", and the person walking by at that moment is Truman Capote. Both the caption to the picture and to a lesser extent the text, suggest that in the movie this is an actual winner of a look-alike contest. That is just incredibly literal, and I don't think it's right. Alvie is just quipping about people walking by. Obviously, in real life Woody Allen knows that is Truman Capote, and therefore that's part of the joke. It would be funny if Alvie the character didn't know, but he might. But either way, there is no actual look-alike contest in the film. Maybe I'm the one reading too literally and this is just a quick way to refer to where his cameo is, but I thought it was dumb when I read it... particularly the caption on the picture. Gripdamage (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)