Talk:Annie Hall/Archive 1

Sex & Politics in Annie Hall: Not Essentially a Political Comedy at All
Yikes, that looks like Original Research. Regardless of the quality of the essay, I don't think it really belongs here... see the above link for a good explanation of why not, because that section clearly qualifies as a Critical review. What I'm getting at is that you're doing a bit too much original analysis for an encyclopedia article, especially since you aren't citing sources (see Original research for more). It seems like a great review, and I'm not trying to be rude here, but it just isn't exactly what Wikipedia is for.

What would be very useful and appropriate is a simple bulleted list of literary, political and other references made by the movie. I doubt anyone can recognize them all off the top of their heads. I'd be happy to generate that from your essay (and adding whatever else I can think of).

Also, you can host your essay elsewhere (see here for some appropriate and free places to put it. And of course linking to the essay on the Wikipedia entry would be fine.

Please let me know what you think! --W.marsh 21:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've removed it several times, the user doesn't seem to appreciate it, and simply reposted it after sending me a hostile e-mail. --Tothebarricades 22:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

No 'Original Thought' eh?!
Ok, well I am new to Wikipedia, and admit I wasn't fully familiar with all of the guidelines. But since Wikipedia is intended to be an (online) encyclopedia, I had assumed that articles or essays were welcome, as they are often found in more conventional, print-based encyclopedias. I've had a look at the guidelines you've cited and, leaving aside the humour in the section title ('Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought'), I take your point that Wikipedia is not intended as a forum for 'original analysis'. I have to say though, I'm not sure I understand the following line, in Section 2 (Critical Reviews): "Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles." What does this mean?

Personally, I think it's a pity if Wikipedia intends excluding essays and sticking to fairly dry, factual articles. Maybe there should be an 'Essays' section for each Wikipedia entry?

As far as sources go, I'd be happy to cite sources if that would make the article fit the Wikipedia criteria. I'm not sure what I've written is really all that 'original', as I'm certainly not the first to notice the political theme in Woody Allen's work.

I don't think much of a useful list of references in Annie Hall could be generated from my article, since I'm really only dealing with political references. In any case, while such a list might be useful for researhers, it'd make for wuite a boring read, without at least some commentary or linking text.

Are you an Administrator on Wikipedia? Do you have a final say iin whether a section added to teh Annie Hall entry stands or not? If it's really the case that my edit is not welcome, perhaps I will condsider hosting it somewhere else.

Thanks --Johncarvill 10:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh no, I'm not an admin. And even then I wouldn't have final say exactly.  I know it can seem kind of silly at first that essays and other "original thought" are excluded, but consider the many topics more controversial than Annie Hall... letting people publish their opinions and analysis wouldn't work too well.
 * I think Wikinfo or Everything2  would both be great places for your essay, and a link from the main article here would be fine.  Even an abbreviated, NPOV version of your article (citing sources) would probably be fine with me.  But there's no rush, I'm not going to delete your essay from the main entry.
 * I hate to make it sound like I'm saying "I don't want your essay here, it's not welcome". I'm just one random guy anyway.  But WikiPedia does have policies that are clearly outlined, and there are places to debate those policies, but I can tell you that they do make sense the longer you're around.  --W.marsh 16:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's just that this kind of writing is not what an encyclopedia is meant for. There are primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Something like a film, a document, is a primary source. Something that references primary sources is a secondary source. A tertiary source, like an encyclopedia, is supposed to be like an overview of secondary and primary sources. As purely a catalogue of pre-existing knowledge, it is not the place to put forward NEW ideas or NEW analyses. If you had your essay published, and we could cite it, for instance, then we could discuss its contents here. --Tothebarricades 22:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

A few comments in support of John's content
I've just read the original article and then taken a look at this ongoing discussion. My feeling is that John's excellent additions on the political aspects of this film are similar to what anthropologists term thick description. As such, his comments on the film seem to me to be helpful to viewers/readers who might miss some of the cultural references within the film on a first viewing. Wikipedia is a broad church and needs to be flexible enough to cope with interesting and informative approaches, within the constrains of the neutral point of view etc.

To provide an example from another film, would it be legitimate to add an explanatory section to an article on Citizen Kane about contemporary political references, the expressionist cinematography of Toland, deep focus, lighting, or sound editing issues? It is my belief that a bit of depth here would be an excellent way of suggesting to someone new to this film that Orson Welles was innovating within the Hollywood system and, as such, could expect guidance on this from an encyclopedia entry. Given this, it is legitimate to include these sort of materials within Wikipedia. Similar points could be made about what could be included in an article on early Godard, Westerns or The Simpsons. It seems to me that John is doing something valuable with his reflections on Annie Hall. I certainly don't have a problem with this being hosted on Wikipedia. Long may his mouse click.

Here endeth the sermon...

Rmackenzie 23:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and Peter Cowan dedicates several pages to a "Glossary of Cultural References" in Annie Hall in his BFI monograph (ISBN 0851705804). If it wasn't plagiarism, that would not look out of place on wikipedia. The JPS 20:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Peter Cowie?

--Johncarvill 21:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, so I do. The JPS 21:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Brief response via Cleanup: I agree with Rmackenzie about the validity of thick description. However, this is forgetting the whole deal of Cite sources and No original research. Here, that format is fine if it draws on specific, stated, reputable, external sources for the analysis. Otherwise, for all we know, it's just some editor expounding their own personal crit of the film. But this is academic in this case, as the style isn't remotely encyclopedic. I think it should be treated as disputed content and moved to the Talk page for discussion of what can be salvaged. Tearlach 02:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. On the other hand...
...As the one armed economist said... Your section is a little long, John. Brevity is the soul of something or other. Perhaps you can condense it slightly in the way suggested, rather than moving it wholesale elsewhere in cyberspace.

Ho Hum...


 * Herewith, the sound of one hand clapping? Agree. Doovinator 06:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits made by 'The JPS'
I have responded to edits made by 'The JPS' on his Talk Page:




 * I'm new to this discussion. But.

1. Sign your posts...always 2. Post here if its about this article, not on someone's talk page 3. You might not like dry articles, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a thought forum. 4. Original research are things that you have researched yourself and do not come from any existing source. The section you keep trying to do add is indeed OR. 5. I would suggest starting a blog or your own web page if you want to do things like this. Wikipedia is not the place for articles like yours.

Thanks. --Woohookitty 06:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In response to Woohookitty:


 * I posted responses on The JPS's page becasue that's where he posted, and because that's where he says users should respond.


 * "Original research are things ..." This does not make sense. Neither does, "The section you keep trying to do add is indeed OR".

--212.57.231.174 12:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You may find it useful to read this: No original research.  Quoting from the relevant portions:  Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".  In other words, anything you add must be backed up by a reputable, verifiable published source.  You can't pull something from your own head and expect it to stand unchallenged without sourcing. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 15:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tothebarricades
User Tothebarricades has scattered responses that I didn't see until now. Lets clear something up. Here is the entire text of the email I sent him:

"Who are you to just remove my edit? Without even the courtesy of sending me a message or putting a note on the 'Discussion' page? Please desist."

I was not being hostile, I was just a bit peeved that this guy removed my entire article without even informing me.

--Johncarvill 21:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Users are not obliged to inform, or ask permission, to make changes. Indeed, the software effectively does this task via the 'watchlist' feature. For example, I have over 500 articles. This enables people to immediately review changes. The JPS 22:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's certainly no requirement that someone ask permission to make changes. In fact you should expect your work to be endlessly refined.  But, it is considered good practice to explain major changes on the talk page afterwards, particularly ones that might be considered controversial in some fashion. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 15:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * And just to clarify, additions OR subtractions should be discussed. I don't mean a sentence or two, but adding or subtracting several paragraphs of material certainly warrants discussion. --Woohookitty 05:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of the Sex and Politics section
Hello The JPS, I am not an impostor, but a genuine contributor, if there is a way that I can prove this, please let me know and I shall do so. I think it is a real shame that the 'Sex & Politics in Annie Hall: Not Essentially a Political Comedy at All' section of the page has been removed, and that when I reinstate it you immediately remove it again despite it not having been yourself that removed it originally.

It seems that you have fallen out with the author of text and are now just blindly doing whatever you can to frustrate him. The reasons for removing the piece are indeed debatable when considering the rules of Wikipedia, however in my opinion the page on Annie Hall is almost completely pointless without this section as most of the other information could be gained from the back of the DVD box. I would like to reinstate the text again but won't enter into a battle with you if you plan to continually remove it. Please let me know why you removed it and what you intend to do from now on.
 * Neil, thanks for coming to talk. First, please use four tildes in a row to sign your comments on talk pages; it makes it much easier to sort out who has said what ( ~ ).  Secondly, there are a few problems with the text you want to insert.  First, it's entirely too long.  Second, it is not in encyclopedic style (would you read this in Britannica?  No.); it reads like a school essay.  Third, it's not sourced.  Please read No original research and Cite sources. It's fine to briefly summarize someone else's scholarly, published discussion about how Annie Hall is more about sex and politics, provided it's properly cited, but you can't include your own or anything that appears to be your own take on the matter. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 22:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Message to Katefan0 - Can you let us have a look at an essay you did at school which reads like my Annie Hall edit? Look forward to seeing it. Neil, thanks for the support, I'm not going to add the edit back in again, what's the point? And to the folks who keep counting up my meagre tally of wikipedia contributions, yes I realise I'm not qualified or experienced enough to be a true wikipedia nerd, but it's a pity wikipedia is dominated by those who have a passion for pedantry rather than a knowledge of, or interest in, the subjects they're posting about. What JPS et all seem most interested in wikipedia itself - they appear to be very much in love with its rules and regulations (we all know that type in real life). Also, they all take themselves very, very seriously indeed. What a joke.

--Johncarvill 06:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, which is that this is an encyclopedia project. Wikipedia succeeds because every effort is made to ensure that the content is entirely factual. If this were not the case, it would be a relatively useless website full of spurious opinions. TheMadBaron 09:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes this is a serious project. There are several places where people joke around and have fun (especially BJAODN), but the article space isn't the place for it. So if you don't understand that, maybe you shouldn't be editing here. If you think that we have no interest in what we are putting on the site, then look at Katharine Hepburn, which is one of Katefan0's contributions. --Woohookitty 09:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * John, I'm sorry you've taken offense; I never meant any. If that's what this was -- a school essay -- I'm sure it was lovely and probably well-received; I wasn't passing judgment on it.  All I'm trying to get across to you is that something written as an essay -- no matter how well done -- is not proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia article.  If there were some published, scholarly treatises on sex and politics in Annie Hall, it would be more than appropriate to briefly summarize (and cite) it, but the way you're going about this is all wrong.  I ask you again, would you read a school essay -- any school essay -- in Britannica?  Please remember that this is an encyclopedia.  We live and die by the reliability of our information.  If everyone's essays were included here, how could Wikipedia ever be considered a reliable source?  Take a look at What Wikipedia is Not, which states:  WP is not for personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 11:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * KateFan0 - I have great trouble reconciling the following statements:

1. John, I'm sorry you've taken offense; I never meant any. 2. If that's what this was -- a school essay -- I'm sure it was lovely and probably well-received.

It was you, not me, who suggested that what I wrote read like a school essay. That's pretty insulting.

--195.62.204.155 12:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, regardless of semantics, I wasn't passing judgment on its quality. I was saying that its style -- which was written LIKE an essay -- was not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Again, I never meant any offense.  It's fine as a concept, but it must be properly presented -- and properly sourced. Do you have a published, reputable source that you can summarize for this particular information you'd like included?  If so, I'd be glad to help you properly include it in the article.  If not, then it is regretfully not appropriate for inclusion for all the reasons that have already been discussed. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but what you actually said was "it reads like a school essay" [my italics], which implied that it reads as if it were written by a schoolboy (or schoolgirl). So, unless you thought I was a schoolboy, how can that not be insulting?

--212.57.231.174 15:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many more times I can say that I'm sorry you took offense. I meant "school" in the loosest sense.  It is in essay-style -- my only point.  Really, if you dislike having your additions critiqued, Wikipedia may not be the most comfortable place for you.  As it says on the bottom of the page every time you edit, If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. I'll ask again:  Do you have a published, reputable source that you can summarize for this particular information you'd like included? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 15:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by 'I meant "school" in the loosest sense'. Just humour me, give me an example of a sense in which you might have used the term 'school essay' which would not imply that the article read like an essay someone would write for school. I have no problem being edited, I would have been delighted if others had come along and added to what I wrote, corrected mistakes, etc. But many just deleted my entire edit without the courtesy of informing me. Some of the first people who posted comments were saying that they did not think my edit was suitable (original research etc.) - and that's fair enough - but they made their points in a polite, non-argumentative manner.  I do now realise that under the wikipedia regulations my article was unduly discursive, rather than being strictly factual. But there does seem to be a rather over-zealous culture of rules and regulations on wikipedia, and people bang on and on about how it's an 'encyclopedia'. Here is the news: wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia, it's an 'on-line encyclopedia', no reader of any wikipedia article is going to take it as seriously as a real, established encyclopedia article, no matter how many grandiose references the pedants here make to Britannica. It's ironic that you quote Katherine Hepburn on your user page, "If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun."  I also still think it's a pity that more in-depth, non-controversial essay type articles are not a part of wikipedia, maybe another page similar to the Discussion page could host 'thick description' segments. I think it's instructive that in all this discussion, which in terms of word-count far exceeds my original article, no-one has mentioned anything at all related to Annie Hall or Woody Allen.

--Johncarvill 18:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for the information you wish to add?  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Cultural misunderstanding alert! Sorry to stick my oar in but I just noticed that John is a Brit (like myself). North Americans often use 'school' to mean 'university'. Brits don't, there the word only means education for small children. John thinks he's being accused of writing junior school material; but I presume Kate is saying it reads like a university essay (which isn't so insulting, right?). The Singing Badger 18:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. That's what I was getting at by saying that I was using the word school loosely. Also, my emphasis was on essay, not on school -- its style, not its quality. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * So by 'school', you meant 'university'? Aye, right. And yes I do have sources for pretty much everything in my original edit. What difference does that make? You have neglected to address my other points. By the way shouldn't you remove the description of Annie Hall as 'ditzy'? Isn't this opinion? Ah well.......... --Johncarvill 07:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You have to source things. If you do not, then Wikipedia could very easily be sued for copyright infringement. it's the same reason why pictures posted here need to have their exact source cited. It's just like if you wrote a university paper and didn't source anything. You have to source. No two ways around it. does everything need to be sourced? Well, it's like with a college paper. If it's general knowledge or general consensus, no. If it's specific verbage from a book or article or paraphrasing from a book or article, yes. And btw, if you do source, your contribution will still be edited. This isn't a free form blog, i.e. everything gets edited by the community. So please don't get upset if you put your contributions in and they get edited. --Woohookitty 10:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there really any need to continue this discussion? I get the impression that this is an argument for the sake of an argument. Even if this school thing is resolved, there will be another convenient misunderstanding, or another escalating argument based on the identification of some stupidly minor issue. The JPS 10:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Some advice
Johncarvill, from what I've seen, you've only done 28 edits. So you would be considered a newbie. So I would suggest reading as many articles as you can on Wikipedia to see the style that's accepted here. Also, you may want to read the articles for deletion page to see what kinds of things are considered original research. Anyone can edit here, but it's always helpful to the community if new editors know the general guidelines of the site. Thanks. --Woohookitty 05:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I need a large sock with horse manure in it!
Well, nice to have JPS back, he chips in with yet another attack on me. He calls me a troll, bemoans my inexperience in editing wikipedia, trumpets his own thousands of contributions, etc. He laments my obsession with "stupidly minor issues." The words 'pot', 'black', and 'kettle' spring to mind. I'm going to dissapoint him now by not attacking him back. I'll leave him to listen to Elton John singing 'Candle in the Wind' (Princess Diana Version).

As for sources, I do indeed have a source for everything in my article. Where would I put these? I don't see any quoted in the article as it stands, or on the Woody Allen page. Where, for example, is the source quoted for "He would later joke that when he was young he was often sent to inter-faith summer camps, in which he 'was savagely beaten by children of all races and creeds'"?

The Annie Hall page as it stands is very sparse, and not a little insipid. You really have to laugh when you read things like, "Allen plays Alvy Singer, a comedian obsessed with death". Talk about reductive! I was trying to put some meat on the bones, to add something that might make a visitor to the Annie Hall page feel his/her time hadn't been wasted.

Well, this'll be my last word on the matter, I'm in rare agreement with JPS in that there really is no point in discussing this any longer.

--195.62.204.155 12:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable, verifiable sourcing for the sex and politics essay and can turn it into something encyclopedic, by all means do. Thanks. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 12:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * One more thing. If you readd your material with sources, try to weave it in with the rest of the article if you can. If you don't know how, we can get it working after you've pasted the stuff back in, but try if you can please. I say that because if you look at any of the movie articles, they all have a similar format. Oh and one other thing. Again, try to look at some other articles if you have questions on sourcing. Or Cite_sources has alot of information on how to site and where. --Woohookitty 13:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The Marshall McLuhan scene video clip
Just wondering why this was deleted, as this is a famous scene, and having a short clip of it doesn't seem off base. Just looking for more opinions on the matter... --Supremelegend 21:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)