Talk:Preston Sturges

Quotes section
I have added Quotefarm to this part of the article, as I feel it contains an excessive number of quotations - that's exactly what Wikiquote is for, not Wikipedia. We already link to Sturges' page on Wikiquote, so I'm not sure we need all these as well - just two or three quotes would be better. Terraxos (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed your tag, which was unwarranted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  23:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is this not a quote farm? I can't recall another article I've seen that has more quotes. William Shakespeare has fewer! Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Sturges has a better agent than Shakespeare? None of the articles for Sturges' films has a quote section, and certainly if these dialogue samples were dispersed into those articles, no one would complain about them. By having them here, all together, one gets a sampling of Sturges' style which, for a filmmaker whose forte was very much his writing, is certainly a valid encyclopedic function. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. If the films had quotes sections, I and others would object. They belong in Wikiquote, with a few left here per Terraxos' suggestion. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sturges's reception, influence, legacy
Sturges is regarded by many as one of the greatest filmmakers ever, which I don't think this article conveys. There should be a section quoting critics and film historians assessing his legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.166.54 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Go ahead and add it, with citations. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image placement
The image placement in this article did not conform to Manual of Style guidelines and Image Use Policy. I made minimal corrections to improve compliance without significantly altering size or placements. Which looks better:


 * MoS compliant version (support changes)
 * Idiosyncratic version (oppose changes) 18:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Responses

 * Support changes as originator. Yworo (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the recipient of Yworo's aggressive and retalaatory wikistalking on this issue (see Talk:Flapper, Talk:Gramercy Park, Talk:Louise Brooks) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not wikistalking you, I'm finding your bad image style judgements (which are really bad I might add) and am attempting to fix them. You repeatedly revert my improvements on every article where I try to make them. Yworo (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither, because both of them are wrong. Yworo incorrectly placed the "Barbara Stanwyck" image before the header, which violates WP:ACCESS.  BMK incorrectly positioned images so that the subject is looking off screen, which violates WP:MOSIMAGE.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks better. However, the image should probably be placed below the header - it doesn't make a difference in the actual appearance, I don't think. Now. What is the problem here? Either placement is acceptable. The alternate placement is not "really bad", its just different. The MOS issues here are minor, and its essentially an aesthetic judgment. Its not worth fighting over. Herostratus (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Link for official website
In the external links the link for the official website for Preston Sturges is a dead link --- instead of prestonsturges.com, it should be prestonsturges.org. G_Matusek (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actualy, neither link works. The correct link is prestonsturges.net Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Preston Sturges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004005929/http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/04/sturges.html to http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/04/sturges.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Extraneous information
An editor added this to the article "Sturges supported Thomas Dewey in the 1944 United States presidential election." Which I removed as being irrelevant and uninteresting. What's next, the brand of corn flakes Sturges preferred? Perhaps the store where he bought his underwear? Boxers or briefs?

Who Sturges supported in an election 76 years ago is given no context or connection with the rest of the article. It's sourced, but it's a factoid of no importance. I removed it and the editor who added it restored it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Look on the pages of celebrities like George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio and you'll see a section about their political views (if they are public). Exzachary (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He signed a petition, that's trivial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that you added the same kind of paragrpah to the articles of everyone who signed the petition, and that all seems completely extraneous to me.  If makes sense to add it to the Dewey article, with links to all the signers, but it's totally WP:UNDUE to add the same basic paragraph to dozens of articles based on signing a single petition. I think you should revert your edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

re-posted for review
A few people have accused my edits of being disruptive, and so I have attempted a "compromise" edit in an attempt to address my concern, and even if anyone disagrees with that edit, I will not make any more changes to the Preston Sturges article. I don't believe my edits were disruptive, and I believe that the accusation of disruption is more in response to the edit war itself, rather than to the content of the edit. It takes two people to engage in an edit war, so I'm hoping someone at least reached out to Beyond my Ken as well.

I think people might, just might, realize I have a point if they actually bother to read and consider my point, that the statements I'm trying to remove literally make no sense.

As I pointed out in my original edit, the article as it stands claims that "Sturges would typically "deliver an exquisitely turned phrase and take an elaborate pratfall within the same scene" and then cited an alleged "example" of a tender love scene interrupted by a horse; cited example is neither an example of a turn of phrase, nor an example of a pratfall." I then clarified the reason for my objection -- "A horse is not a pratfall," a statement that would be axiomatic anywhere except in Wikipedia edits -- and I also proposed a solution -- "this claim needs clarification." I even suggested one possible form of clarification -- "Is the point simply the juxtaposition of comedy and drama? Then say so, minus the hyperbole." In short, I explained the reason for the edit, I suggested a solution that might warrant keeping the content, and I even tried to find some common ground to help aid in that clarification. All of this was ignored and I was instead accused of being disruptive. I suppose I could have avoided the accusation of disruption by not engaging in the edit war, but seriously, the only justification for declaring my edits to be disruptive is if you ignore my multiple attempts to explain the edit, propose a solution, and reach common ground. ADDED NOTE: I admit I did not do this on the talk page. I did, however, provide this commentary in the original edits, which can be easily reviewed on the history page. This commentary was ignored. Beyond My Ken has repeatedly chastized me for not defending my changes on the talk page, which may be a valid point, but surely he's is capable of reading the history page and responding to the commentary made there.

Furthermore, the subjective nature of the content I deleted would, again, be accepted as "subjective" anywhere except in Wikipedia edits. The argument that Sturges was "surprisingly naturalistic, mature, and ahead of its time" -- I actually agree with that statement, but it's a matter of opinion. The article cites a source, but that doesn't mean that the article's author is objectively right. Clarifying the claim with something like, "according to this source, Sturges's work has the following qualities" would be fine, but the article, as written, doesn't do that. It just makes the claim that Sturges was "surprisingly" naturalistic and mature, as if that's an objective fact.

Except for the "added note," the above was copied and pasted from a discussion I had with an editor with the username jpxg. This was the response I received when posting the above on the editor's talk page. I did a simple copy and paste, but if jpxg feels I took anything out of context, he's welcome to correct me:


 * @24.228.152.76: Reading what you've written here, and now looking at the edit in the context of the entire article, it seems at least arguable to me that you are correct and that the previous version of the article was rather silly in describing the scene as a "pratfall" (I haven't watched the film in question, so all I have to go by is the Guardian piece and the Wikipedia article). Certainly, your compromise edit looks fine to me, and I've restored it. I'm not sure what everyone else was thinking; you will probably have to wait and see what they have to say about it. In all honesty, if you were to make a section on the article's talk page and then say the same thing you said here (even if it was the same block of text, and pinged me and BMK at the beginning for context), I wouldn't complain, and I'd be fine with reinstating your version, since I don't think anyone brought up a real objection. I think what most likely happened is that everyone saw a big-ass chunk of text (including a reference) disappear from the article and got BTFO. BMK may have more in-depth opinions, because per authorship information they have written a lot of the article, but if a talk page discussion (or RfC) is opened I don't see what harm could come of it. jp×g 21:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.152.76 (talk)

talking on the talk page
"No, it's not fine. The original says that Sturges can be the two things WITHIN THE SAME SCENE, something that's difficult to do. The replacement says that he can do both things, something that almost any screenwriter can do. The entire point is therefore lost. The talk page is that way."

But Beyond My Ken, are you even bothering to read the text we're arguing about? Based on your emphatic reaction to the other editor, it doesn't seem like you are. According to you, the point that you're trying to make is that Preston Sturges can juxtapose two different things at the same time. That's a valid point! And I'm sorry that my "compromise edit" sent you into such a tizzy because you felt that it didn't communicate that very well. But the thing is, your version communicates that idea even more poorly.

According to the version of the article which you are vehemently defending, the two things that Sturges can accomplish at once are "an exquisitely turned phrase" and "an elaborate pratfall." You then provide an alleged example: a tender love scene interrupted by a horse. Is a tender love scene an example of an exquisitely turned phrase? No. Is a tender love scene an example of an elaborate pratfall? No. Is a horse an example of a tender love scene? No. Is a horse an example of a pratfall? No. The transition from your stated point and your example is a complete non sequitur, and therefore, in the version that you are defending, to use your words, the entire point is lost.

I have to ask, what's your goal here? To defend your original version at all costs? Or to actually communicate what you're trying to say, that Sturges can easily juxtapose two different styles at the same time, verbal wit and slapstick? I was merely trying to help express this idea. I'm sorry if I didn't go about it the right way, but I'm trying to appeal to your common sense now. I'm rapidly learning that we can't work together on this, but if you won't accept edits by a third party, maybe you can re-examine this small passage and find a way to re-state it to make your own point more clearly. Or if you just want to insist that it's fine "because that's the way I wrote it, dammit!!"
 * You are being extremely literal. The question is not whether a horse is a love scene or a pratfall, the question is whether the example is one in which he does pathos and comendy in the very same scene, and it is a valid example of the same. Please understand the difference between literalness and figurativeness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an example of combining pathos and comedy in the same scene, not an example of combining an exquisitely turned phrase and an elaborate pratfall. At the very least, I think it should be provided as a separate sentence, or a separate clause to the sentence. jp×g 20:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you are being much too literal as well, but if you want to try your hand at separating the two, give it a go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I did it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, in one sense, I feel like you've seen the light, and a part of me just wants to shout "hallelujah" and let it go. But in response to your comment "Please understand the difference between literalness and figurativeness," even a cursory review of my previous comments reveals multiple instances where I clearly illustrated that I grasped the distinction between your figurative statements and a more literal understanding of what you were trying to say. Personally, I think this section's use of figuratively substituting one idea for another was worded in a confusing manner and was therefore a poor use of figurative language. Even if you disagree with that assessment, I question the wisdom of insisting on the value of an arguably confusing use of metaphor, when other editors attempt/ suggest clarifying the language. Also, regarding the tone of your comment, I don't think it's inappropriate to refer you to WP:Civility. Assuming the other person is an idiot, or talking down to them in such a manner, is hardly keeping with the spirit of the guidelines on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.152.76 (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)