Talk:The Thief and the Cobbler/Archive 2

"Art film?"
Apparently, there has been edit-warring on whether the film can be best described as an art film through the inclusion of such in the categories section. On one side, editors are judging that Williams' workprint qualifies as such. Detractors believe that the film should be judged through the released version, which is more mainstream. Regardless of whose side you're on, I have opened this thread in order to reach a consensus. Freshh (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess it all comes down to whether we should require citations for being included in the Art Films category. Is there a relevant Wikipedia guideline page? -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC).
 * It was certainly intended by the director to be a work of art, as well as entertainment. ---Asteuartw (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Protection for the page has expired and the anonymous person has once again removed the category. For anyone who didn't notice, he did reply here but deleted his reply immediately afterwards.09:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaukkuTheGreit (talk • contribs)

Well, I was asked by Asteuartw earlier to "[a]t the very least explain [my] arguments on the Talk Page," so here goes... Not only that the claim for this film being an art film is unsourced and I couldn't find references to it being one anywhere, the fact is that none of the majors scholars of art film (e.g., Ray Carney, Susan Sontag, etc.) - indeed, no major scholar of any art form whatsoever - consider cartoon flicks (one can call them animation if one so wishes) to be art films. One can go to http://people.bu.edu/rcarney (or http://insidebostonuniversity.blogspot.co.il) and, using Google, search for "Disney," "Cartoons," etc. and see for oneself. I have never seen either this film or its director being mentioned by serious scholars as belonging to the canon of art film. The film's director, unlike the director of any other film listed in the "Art films" category, is also not mentioned in Wikipedia's List of directors associated with art film category. Asteuartw notes that this movie "was certainly intended by the director to be a work of art, as well as entertainment." I would argue that art and entertainment are like oil and water - if it is indeed true that the director wished this film to be entertainment, then by definition it cannot be an art film, as art films - as the term is usually defined by scholars - resist the very notion of entertainment. It really doesn't matter if the director "intended" it to be a work of art as many Hollywood directors claim divine "intentions" for their commodified products. What really matters is the results... Cartoon flicks also cannot be art films due to the very fact that so-called "animation," no matter how sophisticated, cannot capture the nuances of facial gestures, vocal registers, emotional subtleties, etc., which are the very purpose of art film (and art generally). If anyone here have references that show otherwise or go against anything that I have just said, please do post it here as I would highly appreciate it. The bottom line is: Does anyone here seriously belive that this Hollywood-produced cartoon - and I think it goes without saying that Hollywood-produced films cannot by definition be art films (again, read Carney's website) - belongs in the same category with the works of Dreyer, Tarkovsky, Costa, Bresson, Kiarostami, Syberberg, Akerman, Cassavetes, etc.? Does this movie have anything to teach us about life and society or is it just escapist entertainment? Will it help us improve our lives, understand people and the complexities of human interactions better, bestow upon us a complex emotional experience, etc.? I think not... In conclusion, I would highly suggest that this entry be removed from the "Art film" category. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.234.86 (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for joining the discussion and handling this in a civil manner. This is what you should do instead of edit warring, as per WP:BRD. There's some things I have to point out though: This was not produced in Hollywood, but independently in Britain over many decades by a man who wished to make it unlike any other animated film in existence. The fact that he resisted making any changes to make it more "commercial" after gaining funding from a major studio led him being fired from his own film.-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your hospitality! Regarless of where and how the film was produced, according to the film's Wikipedia page, it was distributed by Majestic Films, Miramax Family Films, and Miramax Family Films/Lionsgate Home Entertainment, i.e., "family" - i.e., kids - affiliated and oriented companies, at once even associated with Disney (that is, Hollywood)! I suggest reading some advanced academic film theory - most importantly, Carney's websites (and, if you have the time, scholarly monographs, especially his "The Films of John Cassavets") - in order to understand what art film (and art generally) is, and, more pertinent to our discussion, isn't. This specific film might have been produced independently and its director might have had some honorable intentions; however, cartoons, for reasons I've (partially) outlined above, simply aren't art films... 109.186.234.86 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.234.86 (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if you only consider the version distributed by Miramax, the yes, that is by no means an art film. But the version people have been talking about is the workprint, which hasn't actually been properly released and thus has no distributor.-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever version we're talking about, cartoon flicks simply aren't and by definition can't be art films. Write "disney OR cartoon OR cartoons site:people.bu.edu/rcarney" (without the quotes) in Google's search bar (it will take you to a discussion of cartoon flicks found in Prof. Carney's website). Prof. Carney is the world's foremost authority on art film. Furthermore, why should a film which, as you say, "hasn't actually been properly released" even be seriously considered for an inclusion in a category obviously meant for existing films (all other films included in the "Art films" category are readily available and have received proper distribution)? Also, I've found out that this movie's director has previously worked on such flicks as "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." Doesn't sound like something a director of art films would do. Regardless, I still fail to see why this cartoon flick merits inclusion in the same category as the masterpieces of Sanders-Brahms, von Trier, Pasolini, Rossellini, Renoir, Burnett, Noonan, etc. I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that this is an art film. What exactly makes this an art film? It's just a cartoon. How is this an art film? Take a look for a moment at the other films in the "Art films" category - and take a few minutes to read about those you don't know - and tell me with a straight face that this movie belongs there. How is this different from "Shrek"? Until we'll see some evidence that this is an art film, this flick's inclusion in that category must go, for it simply doesn't belong. I'm trying to help burgeoning cinephiles, those who don't know much about serious cinema yet are curious, in familiarizing themselves with the canon of art films and, knowing that Wikipedia is one of the first places they'll go to, I seriously don't want them to get confused and actually think that cartoon flicks belong in it. This simply goes against overwhelming scholarly opinion. Is this flick really anything more than a telling of a (male) juvenile story of "adventurism" (Wikipedia categorizes this flick as a "fantasy adventure film," a sure sign of it not being an art film!) or a showcase of "pretty pictures"? Because art films go againt these very notions. Does this movie deal with serious adult themes? Does it have an interest in being profound and telling the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it might be to some? Is it about anything meaningful at all? Does it attack the powers that be? Does it have anything significant to teach us about ourselves and about real life (rather than just being an escapist genre fantasy) or anything interesting to say about human beings and our lives? Does it ask us difficult questions about ourselves? Can it make us experience emotions we didn't even knew were possible? For all I know, this is just another children's film (IMDb reports that the MPAA rated this flick "G," a rating reserved exclusively for children's flicks - if this isn't a reasons to remove this flick from the "Art films" category, I don't know what is! Also, be sure to read what Prof. Carney has to say about children's flicks!). While cartoon flicks do not even have acting, art films deal with adult themes and with the day-to-day realities of our world, focus on the intrigues of adult lives, as well as on subtle changes in body language (something even the best so called "animation" cannot capture), etc., while at the same time depart from Hollywood conventions such as "prettiness" or "telling a story." Given that I'm temporarily banned from doing so, I would highly appreciate it if someone would finally remove this film from that category. That's all I'm asking. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As to whether or not this film qualifies as an art film, I think we might want to look for a source in the same way that we do on films that we categorize as cult films. Particularly in the case of contested edit such as this one, that's my personal go-to position. It avoids POV pushing.

That said, "Whatever version we're talking about, cartoon flicks simply aren't and by definition can't be art films." Is absolutely ludicrous. Appallingly, laughingly bad logic is appalling and laughingly bad. If you're that determined to help cinephiles not be confused, then it might help to stop thinking of all cartoons as the "made for kids only" American kind. Because I can think of a crap ton of Anime and other non-U.S. cartoons that would really like to have a word with you about what the definition of "art film" is. Just a suggestion. Millahnna (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Madame/Sir,
 * First of all, I'm not an American or even an Anglophone, so please don't assume I know nothing about non-American cinema (the overwhelming majority of the film I like, many of whom don't even have Wikipedia articles, are non-American and non-English speaking). Secondly, I've devoted a large portion of my life to carefully studying what art film (and art generally) is and isn't. One thing to remember is that "Art film" is not a synonym for "Films I like." One is entirely within her or his rights to like this or any other cartoon flick, to consider this movie a serious film aimed at an adult audience, an art film, the greatest film ever made, the greatest work of art ever made, or whatever. Wikipedia, however, is (at least in theory) supposed to be objective. Yes, and thirdly, I'm well aware of what so-called "Anime" is and am also well-aware that cartoon flicks are made outside the U.S., again, as I've already mentioned above, sometimes with honorable intentions on the director's part (alas, they are simply not enough). I read a lot of academic film theory and criticism (and a lot of academic art criticism generally, in many languages) and never once encountered even a single cartoon flick mentioned by any of the leading scholars of art film as being one. I suggest familiarizing yourself with the works of Prof. Ray Carney, the world's leading authority on art film, in order to better understand what art film is and isn't. Meanwhile, I actually took a liking to your suggestion that "[a]s to whether or not this film qualifies as an art film, I think we might want to look for a source in the same way that we do on films that we categorize as cult films. Particularly in the case of contested edit such as this one, that's my personal go-to position. It avoids POV pushing." As I've already mentioned countless times, I am aware of no such source - and, a fortiori, a scholarly source - classifying the cartoon flick as an art film. Until we find one, I belive that this flick should be removed from the "Art films" category. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source by a long shot, but a suggestion that the label isn't entirely spurious: a blog that writes "Calvert butchered the film. He completed the remaining animation as cheaply as possible, cut several scenes, and removed scenes that were more adult in nature (not realizing the film was supposed to be for the art house crowd)." --McGeddon (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You said it yourself: not a reliable scholarly source, just some random blog (i.e., someone's opinion). Also, as every cinephile knows, it really doesn't matter if the film was "supposed" to be for the art house crowd, as many Hollywood directors claim divine "intentions" for their commodified products. Results are the only thing that matters. I should also like to note that as of yet no one has even attempted to relpy to my main arguments. Given that I'm temporarily banned from doing so, I would highly appreciate it if someone would finally remove this film from the "Art films" category, at the very least, until we reach a consensus. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily an opinion, it suggests the writer may have been drawing from a source regarding Williams' intentions.
 * Your arguments aren't particularly clear, and trying to discuss animation with someone who keeps calling them "cartoon flicks" and can't even bring themselves to use the word "animation" outside of scare quotes seems something of a fool's errand. (Does your "never once encountered even a single cartoon flick mentioned by any of the leading scholars of art film" refer to mainstream Disney films, or any form of animated image at all? Is "Does this movie deal with serious adult themes?" a rhetorical question from someone who sees all animation as being for kids, or something you're unsure about?)
 * Let's just see what sources people can find. --McGeddon (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, as every cinephile knows, it really doesn't matter if the film was "intended" to be for the art house crowd, as many Hollywood directors claim divine "intentions" for their commodified products. Only the results matter. "I have never once encountered even a single cartoon flick mentioned by any of the leading scholars of art film..." = I have never once encountered even a single cartoon flick - Disney or not - mentioned by any of the leading scholars of art film as being one. "Does this movie deal with serious adult themes?" = A very serious question, given that all art films by definition deal with adult themes, while this cartoon flick - like all cartoon flicks - obviously doesn't. It's simply a good rule of thumb to assess whether or not this is an art film. Finally, I should like to note that we're dealing here only with the question of whether or not "The Thief and the Cobbler" is an art film, so mentioning other cartoon flicks is a rather irrelevant. I shall now state my bottom line yet again: Does this cartoon flick seriously merits inclusion in the same category as the works of Bergman, De Sica, Fassbinder, Fellini, Sjöman, von Trotta, Kaurismäki, Visconti, Oshima, Breillat, Seidl, etc.? 109.186.234.86 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * From skimming the above discussion, I feel both of you are in the wrong. McGeddon, you have not provided a reliable source that explicitly supports the film being classified as an "art film." IP user, "I studied art film for years so I know what I'm talking about" or meticulously analyzing "what makes an art film" doesn't prove your point either. Both your arguments seem to amount to your own analysis, which is considered useless on Wikipedia.


 * That said, I feel that we should not categorize the film as an "art film" on the grounds there is no (immediately available) reliable source that explicitly supports the claim, despite whether or not "animation = art" or if the creators "intended" it to be an art film. By leaving it in without actual proof that the film is in fact an "art film" we risk introducing inaccuracy to the article. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, considering what ThomasO1989 just said, if someone will now finally remove this cartoon flick (for good!) from the "Art films" category, I will too leave you alone for good. Unfortunately, given that I'm temporarily banned from doing so, I would highly appreciate it if someone else would finally do it. In the meantime, I shall now reiterate my bottom line yet again: Does this cartoon flick seriously merits mentioning in the same breath with the best of Antonioni, Cavani, Kluge, Nikolaidis, Makavejev, Kieślowski, Export, etc.? 109.186.234.86 (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Enough with the name dropping; its irrelevant if it compares to any of them or not, its whether or not we have reliable sources calling it as such. Sergecross73   msg me   17:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And, as discussed, we don't... So I would highly appreciate it if someone would finally remove this cartoon flick from the "Art films" category. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Calm down, discussion is still on-going. Even if its wrong, its not going to kill anybody if the article is wrongfully categorized for a few days or something. Sergecross73   msg me   17:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

ThomasO1989 suggested that we should not categorize this cartoon flick as an art film on the grounds that there is no reliable source that explicitly supports the claim that it is and that by leaving it in without actual proof that the film is in fact an art film we risk introducing inaccuracy to the article. Unfortunately, given that I'm temporarily banned from doing so, I would highly appreciate it if someone else would finally remove this cartoon flick from the "Art films" category. Of course no one will die if the article will remain wrongfully categorized for a few days; however, I'm trying to help burgeoning cinephiles, those who don't know much about serious cinema yet are curious, in familiarizing themselves with the canon of art films and, knowing that Wikipedia is one of the first places they'll go to, I seriously don't want them to get confused and actually think that cartoon flicks belong in it. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS. Someone made the change, someone contested it, then discussion ensues. Change only happens if there's consensus to do so, "no consensus" results in "no change". As you're the only one clamoring for its outright, instant removal, right now, we're at "no consensus", and as such, the change does not occur yet. Thanks. Sergecross73   msg me   18:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm also leaning towards leaving it out of the category for now. There isn't really enough good sources currently to support inclusion, it's much less trouble, and frankly this isn't important enough to fight over for months like this. Really, this is something that deserves mention in WP:Lamest Edit Wars. :-P -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you too! 109.186.234.86 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe enough time has now passed without anyone making a new contribution to this discussion or trying to seriously argue that this is an art film. It's time for someone to finally remove this from the category... 109.186.234.86 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Why won't anyone remove this cartoon flick from the "Art films" category already? 109.186.234.86 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The deadline is now. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you chill out? This isn't a WP:BLP, and its a harmless term that has been there for months. Another day or 2 won't hurt. Yikes. Sergecross73   msg me   22:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna go ahead and remove the category for now, even if it may be a bit premature at this point, just to make the IP shut up. Jeez.-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much and, if nobody's going to return this flick to the categoy for good now, farewell! 109.186.234.86 (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources for proving/disproving
Alright, so, lets present any sources that may prove or disprove it to be an "art film". To start off:
 * http://www.tested.com/art/movies/44961-thieves-cobblers-and-fan-edits-the-50_year-odyssey-of-an-animated-masterpiece/ - This article, both directly and indirectly, refers to its perception as an art film. Is this a reliable source? I'm not super familiar with it, but look around, it looks like a pretty professional looking place. Thoughts?  Sergecross73   msg me   17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Perception," as any cinephile knows, means nothing. Many people consider the worst meretricious Hollywood trash to be the greatest works of genius in the history of Western Civilization (just have a look at IMDb's Top 250 Films page). What we need are serious scholarly publications discussing this cartoon flick as an art film. There are none (the article you've linked to definitely isn't a scholarly publication). One should always remember that the popular press, completely ignorant about what real art is, occasionally uses terms such as "art films" to refer to flicks which are just above-average. Real (i.e., academic) film critics will never use the term in that manner. I suggest familiarizing yourself with the works of Prof. Ray Carney, the world's leading authority on art film, in order to better understand what art film is and isn't. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please keep your generic rants art films/Hollywood/etc in the above section. This subsection is about discussing sources proposed. Do you have any thoughts on the source at hand and how it reliable to Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source? Sergecross73   msg me   17:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is not a scholarly publication but an article which appeared in the popular press. Ergo, for reasons described in my previous comment, it does not establish thie cartoon flick's status as an art film. As discussed above, no serious scholar of art film considers any cartoon flick to be one. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Popular press" can be used as a source if its a reliable source. That alone is not enough to discount the source. I'm afraid your Art School background and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia is clouding your judgment on this. This isn't your final exam essay or ArtFilm-pedia. Wikipedia allows for commentary from reliable sources, even if its from modern critics you approve of their "Hollywood Trash". Scholarly articles certainly are useable, but they're not exclusively the only option. Sergecross73   msg me   18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked for "the thief and the cobbler" "art film" in Google Books and found no relevant results. (I don't think the Cinefantastique result connects both terms.) In contrast, there are a few thousand results for just "the thief and the cobbler". Based on these results, I don't think it can be categorized as an art film. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally, someone with common sense! Thank you! I should also like to mention that the article linked to above mentions the film "Brazil" as an example of an art film, a mistake no one knowledgeable enough about serious cinema will make, hence suggesting that this article simply isn't reliable enough... 109.186.234.86 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with arguments like this, that's a valid rationale. I'm just not okay with the snobby personal commentary stances "cartoons could never constitute a art film" or anecdotes of "well my professor would never agree" type stuff that I'm against. Sergecross73   msg me   19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but the addition of content needs to be verifiable. If there are no reliable sources that call this an art film, then we follow that outside lack of consensus. We can't apply our knowledge. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems that finally everyone who hasn't deserted this discussion page now agrees that this simply isn't an art film. Will it finally be removed from the "Art films" category now? 109.186.234.86 (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline or rush. Just because someone hasn't responded in the last hour or two doesn't really mean they've "abandoned the discussion". Let the discussion run its course for a bit. Sergecross73   msg me   20:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The entry you've linked to lead me to The deadline is now, which reads, "When an article contains unverifiable content, it needs to be corrected now before someone reads it and is misled by it." This was listed under "opposing views" in the "There is no deadline" article, so I don't know which perspective is truer. Just sayiing... 109.186.234.86 (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Erik here (which, again, is why I originally brought up the "cult film" analogy) which is basically what I'd already said. We can't find a source flat out calling it an art film so we shouldn't be categorizing it as such. However, given that the above source was published in the popular press, I wonder if we could discuss in reception or themes the concept of the film's perception as an art film in some circles and use that as a reference. Can we find any other sources with some similar commentary? It seems like it would be a potentially interesting addition, particularly in light of the creators' intent with the film.

I'm also inclined to agree with Serge here, IP. I agree with your call that we shouldn't be calling this an art film but I feel that way because of wiki standards on verifiability. "Cartoons can never be art films" and "finally someone with some common sense" are the types of comments that I guarantee will turn people off to your ideas, even when they're not incorrect ideas. See exhibit this conversation. Millahnna (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be some kind of mention of the original version/intention in the Reception area. Currently it's mostly about the Miramax version. Here's another mention in popular press, Film.com putting it on 1st place on a list of "10 Most Beautiful Animated Films Ever Made". (I'm not trying to use that as a justification for inclusion in the Art Films category, I'm already fed up with the argument.)-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

And now we have another one arguing for this 'toon flick's removal from the "Art films" category! One wonders, how many more days will we finally have to wait until consensus is "officialy" determined and the change can finally be made? I don't get it: What's the problem just removing this from that category already? It will take less than a minute! We've already reached a consensus yesterday and no one is attempting to argue against this flick's removal now. In fact, with no new addition for hours now, the discussion is virtually over. No, including a cartoon in the "Art films" category is neither "harmless" nor would it "not hurt anyone": I'm trying to help novice cinephiles, those who don't know much about serious cinema yet are curious, in familiarizing themselves with the canon of art films and, knowing that Wikipedia is one of the first places they'll go to, I seriously don't want them to get confused and actually think that cartoon flicks belong in it. One can only believe that maintaining this status quo is harmless if one doesn't take art seriously. For the sake of Wikipedia's status as a source of serious and reliable information, please remove this flick from that category. Are people here trying to stall? Does anyone here even have the intention of removing this cartoon from the "Art films" category some day? 109.186.234.86 (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

HELP! SOMEBODY PLEASE REMOVE THIS CARTOON FLICK FROM THE "ART FILMS" CATEGORY ALREADY! 109.186.234.86 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody asked a new question pertaining to the issue of whether or not this is an art film "a few hours ago" (only about whether or not the article linked to above might be useful as a source for dealing with other issues related to this flick, and that was almost 12 hours ago). In fact, nobody asked such a question for almost a day now! The discussion is virtually over now as everyone agrees that this flick should be removed from the "Art films" category! What are you guys waiting for? It seems to me that nobody here gives a damn about art. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * All that's been agreed is that we currently have no source that describes the film as an "art film". This wasn't a discussion about subjective opinions which is now "virtually over" and where we've established a consensus to keep this film out of a particular category "for good", it's an ongoing call for sources. You might be used to faster-paced internet discussions with triumphal endpoints, but Wikipedia talk threads can happily tick over for years. If somebody drops by in a month's time and presents a strong source calling Thief an art film, the category can be restored. --McGeddon (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * People here actually want me to continue participating in this discussion! Wasn't expacting that! I'm not really sure what you mean by a "strong source." For all I know, any clueless civilian hack journalist can call any garbage an "art film" or even the greatest film ever made and get published. In fact, given that our media is completely ignorant about art, things like that probably happen as we speak (for a really dismal example of this phenomenon, see, again, IMDb's Top 250 Films page). If Wikipedia's standards dictate that actual scholarly consensus - you know, the one in which academics who have actually dedicated their entire lives to the serious study of a particulat topic (in our case, what art film is and isn't and eventually, what art generally is and isn't) - doesn't matter as long as one can invoke some piece penned by someone who thinks that pyrotechnics, craftsmanship, showiness, tricks, etc. (those things are usually mistaken by the popular press and other who don't know any better for art) make a film "great," well, that's kind of sad and maybe I don't want to take part in the Wikipedia project after all... Just my two cents, but I'm interested in completely different things: Can this cartoon flick, for example, really dig into our hearts and souls, that is, our very consciousness? If someone does indeed can come here within a month or two and show you all a "strong source" calling this sunday morning cartoon an "art film," think about this... 109.186.234.86 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Judging by your contribution list, you seem to be mostly interested in POV pushing and removing the term "art film" or "art-house" from every instance you personally deem unacceptable, without any explanation or edit summary. That's extremely close to genre warring, which is frowned upon around here. Everyone's free to discuss and contribute, but to be clear, it's the lack of sources that has swayed people, not your conceited art school mentality... Sergecross73   msg me   15:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Funny that someone so hostile to the very notion of the differentiation betwen real high arts and pop-culture schlock (to the point of writing "enough with this name dropping" when I innocently asked whether or not some cartoon can justifiably be said to be on the same level as the greatest masterpieces made by the 20th and 21st centuries' greatest artists, as if I was merely engaging in showmanship), apparently without any theoretical underpinnings to justify this position, will be so invested in editing entries (such as the "Art films" category) dealing with, well, high arts... By the way, although I never went to so-called "Art School" (your insistence otherwise notwithstanding), and, never having done so, obviously couldn't say something like "my professor would never agree" when attempting to explain why cartoon flicks aren't and can't be art films, I highly reccomend that you'll familiarize yourself with some genuine art films (like the 62 films mentioned in Wikipedia's "Art films" category) in order to better undestand why my opinions aren't so "conceited" or weird. As for "snobby," well, anyone even remotely interested in real art knows very well that a real differentiation does actually exist between it and pop-culture dreck, so, yes, elitism is part of the job, whether you like it or not. Judging by your contribution list - I think that since you've already mentioned mine it's only fair game that I'll mention yours, right? - you seem to be mostly interested in video games and pop-rock. Funny, again, that you're so invested in editing entries (such as the "Art films" category) dealing with, well, high arts. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Be elite all you want, but just not on Wikipedia. "Part of the job" isn't POV pushing on Wikipedia in particular. This is not the place for your "elitism". Sergecross73   msg me   16:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned all the way up, your entire argument amounts to your own personal analysis. In other words, no one here cares if you studied art films all your life. It doesn't make you the end-all judge of what can and can't be included in a Wikipedia article. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "[N]o one here cares if you studied art films all your life" - Again, as I've stated in my earlier response to you, if that's Wikipedia's approach, well, that's kind of sad, isn't it? 109.186.234.86 (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, not at all, that's what Wikipedia is by definition. Everything must be verifiable. Otherwise, things would be overrun by personal opinions. What you're doing is nothing new; there's always some self-professed expert on their high horse talking about how its ridiculous to call Metalica "heavy metal" when they're obviously "hard rock" or whatever. So we settle arguments by what sources say, not easy faked/fudged "personal anecdotes" or original research. If you don't like it, I'd recommend you go find a fancy art blog or art-specific Wikia or something... Sergecross73   msg me   15:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood. That isn't exactly what I meant. Of course I agree encyclopedic content must inevitably and invariably be verifiable. What I meant is not that you should simply take my word, but, again, that while any clueless civilian hack journalist can call any garbage an "art film" or even the greatest film ever made and get published (in fact, given that our media is completely ignorant about art, things like that probably happen as we speak - for a really dismal example of this phenomenon, see, again, IMDb's Top 250 Films page), if Wikipedia's standards dictate that actual scholarly consensus - you know, the one in which academics who have actually dedicated their entire lives to the serious study of a particulat topic (in our case, what art film is and isn't and eventually, what art generally is and isn't) - doesn't matter as long as one can invoke some piece penned by someone who thinks that pyrotechnics, techniques, craftsmanship, showiness, tricks, etc. (those things are usually mistaken by the popular press and other who don't know any better for art) make a film "great," well, that's kind of sad and maybe I don't want to take part in the Wikipedia project after all... In other words, I want greater standards of verification (and for people to have some background), not lower. Just my two cents, but I'm interested in completely different things: Can this cartoon flick, for example, really dig into our hearts and souls, that is, our very consciousness? If someone does indeed can come here within a month or two and show you all a "strong source" calling this sunday morning cartoon an "art film," think about this... Also, I don't recall using any personal anecdotes in my arguments. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there's a huge disconnect in Wikipedia's definition of reliability and yours. All that nonsense you keep referencing like "Is it comparable X authors work?" or "Does it contain pyrotechnics?" are completely irrelevant, because they're your personal criteria films or values for a reviewer. They haven't swayed a single person yet because it violates original research. Now, if you cite things from Wikipedia's criteria for what makes a reliable source, it'd be different. But you seem unwilling or unable to do thus far. Sergecross73   msg me   16:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, they're neither my personal criteria nor POV-pushing but the universal criteria used by serious (i.e., academic) film critics (rather than hack journalists, who call every film they like an "art film") upon assessing whether or not a film is an art film. You would have known that if you would have read some advanced academic film theory as I've suggested another user should do a few days ago. That Wikipedia's rules don't seem to give a damn about academic consensus (similar to what, e.g., creationists are doing) if one can only invoke some newspaper clipping penned by some hack refrering to a mediocre flick as the greatest film ever made or whatever, is not just sad, it's also extremely disturbing, amateurish, and eventually the reason why many people (especially in academia - the real experts, you know?) simply don't take Wikipedia seriously. It is, if you ask me, the very definition of POV-pushing. To quote Ray Carney, the world's foremost authority on art film, on this very subject: "I don't trust the whole idea of Wikipedia. Stuff submitted by readers? It's a recipe for bias and mistakes. Like the rumor game we played in third grade. I want to know what experts, geniuses, artists think. I don't give a damn what the common person (the person who doesn't have a life and submits text to Wikipedia) thinks. Elitism forever! In encyclopedias and in art!" (from http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/aboutrc/letters105.shtml). 109.186.234.86 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't have to like it. But you need to adhere to the rules while you're here, or go somewhere else. But either directly cite critics (ironically, how you just did with your Carney quote) or don't bother bringing it up.  No one will take you seriously with your "universal criteria" generalizations. You need to verify what exactly you're referencing.  Sergecross73   msg me   16:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've pointed people to enough references about what art films are and aren't in this discussion already, but here's another one from Carney: "It's a truism that most American feature films and the performances in them are indistinguishable from cartoons. But the problem is deeper than our cultural infatuation with superheroes or the cults that have grown up around Jack Nicholson's or Jim Carrey's cartoon versions of acting. Even most so-called serious movies (from Easy Rider to Thelma and Louise, Malcolm X, and Schindler's List) are dumbed down to the level of comic books. Characters are generic; situations are archetypal and representative; and the morality is as black-and-white as a children's book. The actors might as well wear signs around their necks telling us how we are supposed to interpret them. The audience is more or less told what to know and how to feel every step of the way. American film needs to move beyond the Boy's Book and Harlequin romance stage. We need films where characters are not generalizations and stereotypes, but particular, prickly individuals. We need figures who are neither good nor bad, neither heroes nor villains, whose motives are impure and mixed. We need films where the drama is not premised on external conflicts, but on internal confusions and ambivalences. Why can't we have movies about characters that viewers will not be able to figure out and situations they will not be able to make up their minds about? We need movies that go into the gray and fuzzy places–movies that capture the murky irresolution of life as it is actually lived. We need scenes that explore the in-between places of life, where there is no clear problem and no clear solution. We need scenes that are pitched at tonal in-between places, scenes that don't allow the audience the luxury of figuring them out too easily or settling back into a simple relationship to them" (from http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/indievision/open.shtml). Anyway, as I've promised. since I got what I want, there is no reason for me to extend my participation in this debate any longer, at least as long as no one will attempt to return this cartoon flick to the "Art films" category. You may like me (or the very concept of high art) or not, but at the end of the day, even Wikipedia's silly anti-scholarly so-called "rules" aren't able to justify including this cartoon in the "Art films" category. Farewell! 109.186.234.86 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, great, another wall of text about your opinions on cinema. Since its unlikely to even be read by anyone, let alone be influencing anyone, I'll stop lecturing you now except for when you're actually affecting the article space. Sergecross73   msg me   16:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, these are Prof. Ray Carney's opinions (saying things not that different from what I've said earlier only to be attacked with claims of making criteria up). 109.186.234.86 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, and that's great, but unless you've got a quote of him saying "Thief is not an art film." or something far more direct, that's just synthesis. (ie not useable.) Sergecross73   msg me   16:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeing now that you're attempting (below) to re-introduce this cartoon flick to the "Art films" category, I thank you for finally convincing me, as I've long suspected, that all my Wikipedia editing throughout the last year or two was a waste of time. I hereby abdicate all my claims and you now have my permission to add this or "Shrek" or whatever to the "Art films" category. Meanwhile, I think I'll start hitting, once again, my large library of academic - that is, unverifiable and completely useles, especially when compared to random and oh-so-verificable blogs - books concerning what is and isn't an art film (and what is and isn't art generally). Carney, in his quote I posted here about Wikipedia an hour ago, was definitely right: This simply isn't serious buisness and should be treated as such, i.e., avoided like the plague by anyone academically-inclined or actually interested in accurate information supported by scholarly consensus. I will no longer edit Wikipedia, on this entry or any other. Feel free, if this is possible, to deactivate the account associated with my IP address. I only hope that in the future Wikipedia will cease having the influence it has now.109.186.234.86 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you can't reconcile your personal views with Wikipedia policy. (Your academic books are fine, you just need to learn how to apply them directly without your own original research.) Sergecross73   msg me   17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I am late to the party. Regarding the categorization of art film, I would support Erik's position on the matter here. We should find a reliable source to confirm that this film is an "art film", otherwise we should keep it out. I think one of these can be found here, in which Alex Williams says that this is an "art film." That's logical enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Tested.com
So, I just noticed that the "tested" source I provided at the top of this subsection, is already used twice in the article. Has it been deemed reliable in the past? Or conversely does it need to be removed there as well? Sergecross73  msg me   14:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like a self-published group blog and the article's author Wesley Fenlon doesn't appear to be an "established expert on the subject matter" (from his personal site his only other published work has been in a student newspaper). Tested.com does seem to have some clout behind it as a publication in general, though, rather than just being a group blog of unknowns. Might be worth asking at WP:RSN. --McGeddon (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, its not really a "self-published" blog if it was written by Fenlon and published by Tested/Whiskey Media, right? It'd be self-published it he put it on "Fenlon.com" or whatever sort of blog he himself would start up, right? Sergecross73   msg me   15:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWSBLOG suggests that a group blog can also be self-published ("For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.") - at the low end, a group of amateurs writing some stuff and then publishing it on a shared domain are clearly self-published. I don't know where the line gets drawn, though. --McGeddon (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do know that some of those websites like Forbes or IGN have contributors that can pretty much be anyone. Usually they're tagged as a special sort of personal blog or contributor or something. Not that familiar with Tested, so I don't know if they have such a marking system. If it were one of their main writers, I'd think they'd be reliable, as WM was founded by a CNET co-founder, so that seems like a pretty serious business outlet. But yeah, if its just some random guy they published, it would mean much less in this particular sources instance... Sergecross73   msg me   15:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fenlon looks like a regular contributor, from searching the site. If we're not sure where the line gets drawn, WP:RSN will be able to help. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, at this point, it doesn't seem to have gathered any support as a ref for the "art film" category, and the things it does support in the article seem pretty uncontroversial, so I don't feel its really worth challenging that seriously... Sergecross73   msg me   15:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's just an interview with the author of the "Recobbled Cut", and is only used for some small info about it and its latest developments. I'd say it's reliable enough for the context it's used in.-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, reading the line in question, it's not saying "this animation is an art film" in the journalist's voice, it's saying "Gilchrist thought that Warner Brothers mishandled Thief because he thinks they thought something like 'well, this is an art film, and we think it's garbage'", which is nowhere near strong enough to stand by itself as "this is an art film". The fact that it's a quote from Gilchrist gives it enough heft to quote in context, if we wanted to, though. --McGeddon (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I had wondered if it was enough to show that there had been a perception of it being an "art film", I recognized that the writer himself wasn't saying it, and now I see upon closer inspection that the writer probably isn't qualified to speak of such a general belief, so I'm fine with this. Sergecross73   msg me   16:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Animation World Network
Well, if we are going to quote somebody about the film's artistic intent, I'd consider Alex Williams, the son of the director, a much better choice: On page 2, he talks about how "Dick [Richard] Williams spent 30 years trying to pull off an animation masterpiece, a true work of art, the like of which may never be seen or attempted again."-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe this is why it was probably given the "art film" category. In its (lengthy) development time, its pretty readily apparent that both "He wanted to make a work of art" and that "its a film". The sourced definition of "art film", from the article itself, is intended to be a serious artistic work, often experimental and not designed for mass appeal. The category seems warranted to me. Sergecross73   msg me   16:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Art Film cat seems appropriate to me for a 30 year labour of love ---Asteuartw (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So far as I understand the film, it does appear to fit the first-paragraph definition of an art film at Wikipedia's art film article: it's "intended to be a serious artistic work, often experimental and not designed for mass appeal", "made primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than commercial profit" and "unconventional or highly symbolic content". --McGeddon (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Restored category. At best, there's consensus for it, and at worst, there was no real consensus to remove in the first place. Sergecross73   msg me   04:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus for this. Just because AWN barely identifies it as an "art film" (and I find that labeling questionable), the lack of sources in Google Books calling it an art film (or "arthouse film" or "art film") reflects that it has not been called that retrospectively. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's "No Consensus". But WP:NOCONSENSUS means no change. So it should stay in its original state until a consensus emerges. The "original state" was actually with the article actually having it in the article. It never should have been removed earlier.  Sergecross73   msg me   14:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that WP:BURDEN applies here. Are we labeling it an art film because AWN calls it "a work of art"? I mean, a well-produced blockbuster could be called "a work of art" too. It is easy enough to find lists of art films in Google, and I think the fact that we cannot find this label readily applied to this film indicates that we cannot categorize this. I don't care to interpret the genre definition as the IP editor and McGeddon and Asteuartw have done. We should be able to verify through secondary sources if it has been called that or not, and if we're scraping at the bottom of the barrel... Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As somewhat said above, look at it this way: If you ask me, the proof seems rather over-the-top as far as rationale needed for a simple, non-BLP category... Sergecross73  msg me   15:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's article on art films says "An art film is "intended to be a serious artistic work, often experimental and not designed for mass appeal";[2] they are "made primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than commercial profit" [3] and they contain "unconventional or highly symbolic content." [4] - sourced by the dictionary and a book source.
 * We've got a source saying "Dick [Richard] Williams spent 30 years trying to pull off an animation masterpiece, a true work of art, the like of which may never be seen or attempted again."
 * Per the article currently, it discusses the films decade-spanning production history, showing a lack of concern for commercial profit and because they were trying to make it "an epic on an unrivaled scale" (serious artistic work, experimental, aesthetic reasons)