Talk:Ray Carney

NPOV Dispute?
This article was originally very biased towards its subject. It has been improved, but it still seems to be attacking Cassavete's wife, Gena Rowlands. The claims that Rowlands got Faces out of the Library of Congress and got Carney fired from the box-set thing should be verified. JoaoRicardo 05:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to doubt what Carney says in the referenced interviews. It is clearly not in his interest to make factual claims that could be easily proven false. The notice about factual accuracy seems to me therefore to be out of place. (One may, of course, object to Carney's behaviour in this episode without disputing the facts of the matter.) Sir Paul 03:33, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sir Paul-- I think the article's NPOV stance has been greatly improved. Also, now that all the claims Carney has made have been referenced, I think the factual dispute notice should be removed.  Anonymoustom 12:00 Apr 27, 2005


 * The new section on Rowlands presents both her legal argument and Carney's, as well as some personal background on the two of them. I think this has quite effectively nulled the NPOV stance and I am taking the liberty of removing the notice. --Anonymoustom 15:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

>>Those who can, do. Those who can't (due to a staggering lack of talent and fair share of envy), critique!

This article was very recently tagged with an NPOV/Weasel words notice. I think the edits made two years ago bring this very much in line with a neutral point of view, and I haven't detected any "weasel" words. Would anyone like to bring up any specific points that they feel need addressing? 68.41.109.188 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no dispute that I can ascertain, I'm going to be bold and remove the notices.Anonymoustom (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"The legal proceedings involving Ur-Shadows has been very costly for Carney, both emotionally and financially." The tone of this is not NPOV. It doesn't address the financial or emotional cost to Gena Rowlans. It does present Carney's argument that Rowlan's can afford it, but gives no citation. Sounds like Carney wrote this portion himself. I do not agree that this is NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomthm (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing
Does anyone else have a problem that 90% of the citations for this article come from the guy's own bio on his university website? Is he notable?--Lepeu1999 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is an advertisement for Ray Carney and his website. Period. It is very clear that he and his students wrote it and it is presented solely from his point of view. It characterizes him as some sort of champion of cinema and a hero cinephiles everywhere, when in fact he is a laughingstock to anyone outside his immediate social circle. I don't even understand how he is important or well-known enough to justify an article. Can anyone just come here, write an article about how awesome they are, and site their own website as the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.28 (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The following comment was blocked by an edit filter. However, it seems to me that this is a false positive, so I am copying it here on behalf of the editor who tried to post it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This article may have been written by a student of his, but I doubt very much that we'd spend the time to write it. It seems biased because a lot of the article seems to be taken verbatim from Carney's personal website, which I agree creates a biased point of view.


 * As for being notable- the guy has published several books, the most well know being Cassavetes on Cassavetesm a very popular film book. He has a PhD and is a known art critic.


 * And I'm not in his immediate social circle. Never met the guy, but I really like what he has to say. He's only a "laughingstock" to you because you don't take any original or unique point of view seriously. People get very butthurt that he's critical of guys like Hitchcock and Kubrick. Well guess what? He's written several well-thought out essays on the subject. Look on his website, he really dislikes Hitchcock but has spent a lot of time watching the man's films and wrote a great critique on his limitations as a filmmaker. You know, like a good critic would.


 * Anyway, I'm all for cleaning this article up. But not dismissing the guy.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.40.97 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 January 2011

No, it is not his unique way of thinking that makes Ray Carney a laughing stock. On the contrary it's his narrow-mindedness. It's one thing not to like Hitchcock, but for better or for worse, the man must be understood in order to understand the history of cinema. I would argue that few directors have had more of an influence on the medium than Hitchcock. Carney is undoubtedly an intelligent and eloquet scholar, but he is so determined to dismiss any other filmmaker other than the few he champions (and, given his friendhsip with the man, I think that carrying on the ludicrous assumption that no one was ever or will be as good as Cassavetes is his way of mourning the filmmaker) that he is of little use to any cinephile whose interest extends beyond his handful of favorites. Of course this page is grossly slanted as a valentine to Carney by his followers. Look at the section detailing his legal battles with Gena Rowland, you can almost hear Carney screaming "oh poor me!" as you read them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.93.25.195 (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Other Works
It says he has written extensively on Henry James, but where? He certainly mentions him in his books and has edited two (I think) James editions, but I don't think that qualifies as extensive... The same applies to American painting. 70.72.214.47 (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Improperly Sourced and possible non-NPOV
This article is not properly sourced. It is almost entirely based on things that the subject himself has written, and those are almost all from a personal website. It definitely violates the fifth ofthe rules on such sources, and it might also violate rules 1 through 3. Additionally, this article is not very neutral. Carney is generally considered a fringe academic and garners very little respect from other scholars; this article reads like an advertisement touting his virtues. Emtilt (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ray Carney. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.filmfestivalrotterdam.com/en/film/6382.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ray Carney. 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/20070426124613/http://www.newenglandfilm.com/news/archives/01november/carney.htm to http://www.newenglandfilm.com/news/archives/01november/carney.htm

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) 08:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)