User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 9

Phoning home some resources
What search engine are you using for those (i guess) journals?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I began with Google scholar, which is available to anyone. MLA, JSTOR, Project MUSE, and EBSCO would also all be useful. MLA is a listing of articles relevant to literature (but it also includes film articles). JSTOR has articles about literature, history and the social sciences (most of its articles are available in full-text as well). Project MUSE has full-text articles relating to literature and film. EBSCO is a much broader database, but it also covers literature and film. All of these databases are available for use at major research libraries and even some local libraries. If you are a student at a university, you probably have access to these from your home computer. Awadewit | talk  18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please understand that none of this is a personal attack on the editors. I am concerned that the page, as it stands, will not represent "the best of wikipedia" in this field. Wikipedia has a credibility problem, as you know, and leaving such major sections out of its "featured" articles will not improve this problem. Moreover, the article itself just does not explain what the movie is about (themes) or how the artistry of the film conveys those themes (cinematic style). I understand that not all editors are interested in these topics, but to completely understand a film, you must consider not only its plot, production and reception but also its themes and style. To not include this information does a great injustice to the user coming to this page. Currently, the interests of the editors are reflected in the page (I presume). A Short Guide to Writing About Film describes much about film that you might find interesting. Awadewit |  talk  18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I want to point out that I know you aren't attacking anything and that you are trying to help. I was only saying (at the FAC) that simply stating "it needs themes because other people talk about themes", but not giving some examples (which you provided with Bick later) wasn't helpful. That is why I'm trying to work with you to figure out where you found the journals so that I can help Alien (who seems to be the only real editor for the page) expand the article to earn your support. I found the PDF you mentioned you were looking at. I informed Alien that it can't be copied because it's viewable only, and I didn't see an option to select any text. But, since I found it, when I have the time I can go through it and pull relevant content and provide a filled out citation template for Alien to work with. That shouldn't be a problem with legal issues. I couldn't find any of the others on EBSCO except for the last, and I only got key words that show up in the text. That's kind of helpful for other searchs, because one could search for those key words, alongside E.T. Did you find all on JSTOR, or just the one PDF?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can download the PDF from JSTOR but I don't think you can then paste the file anywhere legally. You can reference it, obviously, just not upload it. I started with the Bick that I found on google scholar and found the other references in that article. Helpfully, the article began with a little survey of the literature written on E.T. up until that time. I have not done an exhaustive, MLA, MUSE, JSTOR, EBSCO search for E.T. and Spielberg-related material. Please realize that many times you can find useful information in articles not specifically about E.T. or even Spielberg. That information is just harder to find. Awadewit | talk  19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And yes, I know that themes are important. Please read my work on Pilot (Smallville), maybe you could provide some more insight into what I've got there, to help further that article. It's got a Peer Review up, so if you find something you could put it there, if you have time to read over it. That's more about what was intended though, I haven't found anything from others interpretations...then again, it's a television episode, and not on a lot of people's radars.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be glad to help. I will review it in a day or so. Awadewit | talk  18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Take your time, in no rush to nominate yet. I've got my hands full with other pages.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

ET FAC
It wouldn't hurt would it if you cut and pasted those PDFs in my second sandbox, which is empty bar a referencing exercise? Thanks. Alientraveller 17:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Except I'm not sure that I am legally allowed to do that. Those articles "belong" to the companies that digitized them and put them together in a database (it is a weird version of copyright law - digitizing gives you possession). I do not think that I am allowed to paste documents that are only available through a subscription service to the web where anyone could read them. Certainly, the author's and the journal's copyrights on these articles hasn't run out, so there is no justification there. I would love to help you, I really would, but I do not want to be sued. Pasting the whole article is not fair use, since it is the entire article and not a section. (I really dislike much of copyright law - it only prohibits the free exchange of information. Witness this.) If you can find a legal justification for me putting it up, I will definitely do so, but I'm pretty sure I can't. Awadewit | talk  18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I did re-organize the article for a themes section, and will be back to scouring my Joe McBride book on Spielberg (something about E.T. being a father's displaced phallus springs to mind, now that's something Spielberg didn't intend!). Alientraveller 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Spielberg's movies attract a lot of psychoanalytic criticism. Hopefully there are some more accessible interpretations out there that will make more sense to the average user. I have a feeling that the Reagan-ite and family interpretations will. (Does the McBride have a bibliography? That would be a good place to look for additional sources.) Awadewit | talk  18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the article has been based around his research a decade ago based on his bibliography. Alientraveller 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Trimmer
No, it isn't; however, since Infobox Writer defaults the image to 200px (if I'm not mistaken), I reduced it to avoid pixelation, as Image:SarahTrimmer.jpg is only 142 pixels wide. You can remove the width parameter if you like, but you have to remove the whole line of code otherwise the image won't display :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 145 is fine. (How silly. How is anyone supposed to know to delete the entire line? I would never have guessed that since all of the other infoboxes I work with allow you to leave fields empty without a problem.) Thank you again. I wish that all of this kind of information were listed somewhere - a wikipedia programming guide or something. Awadewit | talk  22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it probably wouldn't hurt for a note to be added to the template documentation—why don't you ask at its Talk page? I'll have another look at the new and improved Priestley later (gah... you probably think I'm lying by now :); it is indeed quite long, but I can't think of anything superfluous to cut out—everything seems pertinent at the very least, and I'd hate for information to be removed simply because it isn't essential. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will drop a note at the talk page. (I have to remove non-essential information; what else am I going to do? I don't think forking is an option here.) Awadewit | talk  00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Joshua A. Norton
Hey, any chance you could also take a look and copyedit Joshua A. Norton? This was a former FA, and it was in pretty bad shape when I started working on it a few months. I would like to know if you think its FA-ready. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you give me a few days, yes. Awadewit | talk  00:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, take your time. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

themes
Hey, calm down there, tiger. They were discussing hte matter with you, not calling you an ass-clown. If you find yourself getting steamed, you need to take a step back for a bit. The world isn't going to end if they don't dig your idea now. There is always later. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see this FAC. I have already had this conversation with Bignole, so it was frustrating to begin all over again. (It was this discussion and my survey of film articles that led me to make the suggestion in the first place.) Frankly, there is not much to discuss. Film pages should discuss themes and cinematic style. The real question is the best way to achieve that discussion. I would rather talk about that. I am not going to spend time convincing people that there are important themes in films. I do that too much in my regular life. I do not want to replicate the trials of teaching freshman composition on wikipedia. That is not fun for me and I use wikipedia for relaxation. Awadewit | talk  17:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I want you to know that you did not go unheard. Your comments did strike me as condescending, but I understood what you were trying to say. I read the essay I mentioned about incest in American Beauty and found it very engaging, and I looked up its author, Kathleen Rowe Karlyn. If I ever start work on the film's article, I will certainly explore the prospect of its inclusion. I think WikiProject Films has been accustomed to presenting a film's technical background, and not so much on the critical interpretations by experts in film studies and topic-related fields. Your proposal was probably too drastic for many to swallow, but like I said, you did not go unheard. I will be considering your perspective as I delve into my thematically noted projects. Perhaps the ideal approach will serve as a catalyst for this particular WikiProject to evolve into a more "enlightened" arena. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that they sounded condescending - I meant them only to sound forceful. I did a pretty thorough survey of the film articles here and was incredibly dismayed. I am dismayed by the quality of the "humanities" articles in general. Wikipedia has excellent science articles but its humanities articles lack the expertise and precision of those articles. When I saw the state of the film articles and the guidelines, it only added to my frustration that wikipedia has severe limitations in the areas that I study. You must understand that scholars toiled for years to even get universities to accept films as a legitimate field of study - it was a long, arduous and very painful process. That scholars can even write about film and teach about film is a very new thing. It is therefore exciting that these articles can now be based on real research and careful arguments by people who think about film all day long. They do not necessarily have to rely on promotional material on DVDs or film reviews. That such material is being excluded from articles is saddening to me because film scholars have argued so convincingly for the importance of film in society and they often have very interesting arguments to make. Film is the dominant medium of our time, in many ways, and it should not receive less scrutiny that literature. I agree that the project seems focused on the technical issues of film (I am wondering if this is a result of fandom) and while I know that those are important and interesting to many readers, themes are just as important. I did not think that such a proposal would be considered drastic because it is so obvious to me, as it would be to any film scholar. I wouldn't call the project "unenlightened," I would just say that right now its guidelines are incomplete; also, it is not encouraging its editors to make use of all of the sources available to them. This is too bad, since it cheats the editors, and most importantly, the readers. Awadewit | talk  17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True, film is the most popular medium: it mixes everything. Magic tricks, drama, art, photography, music... But some films are more magic tricks than others. Themes for me is a cross-section of production and reception: it all depends on an editor's preference really. I think themes is certainly important for a drama film, than an action or fantasy film because themes are put into context with "how they did it." Alientraveller 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think all aspects should be covered for each film, with appropriate weight given to "special effects" in action movies, for example. Awadewit | talk  19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I would attribute the condition of the film articles to a couple of factors. First, Wikipedia has not been around for very long, so there are not many prominent film articles that are in the shape that you hope for.  They obviously require time and energy to develop, and I suppose it requires devotion on the editors' part.  I have usually worked on articles on future films, which are obviously deprived of critical interpretation for the time being, and I usually participate in the "lightweight" research to contribute what I can.  I've recently started exploring older films like Fight Club, and admittedly, I looked past sources that provided critical interpretation.  This is probably the second factor -- the locked mindset that if a film matches the qualities possessed by existing Featured Articles, it is ready for that status.  (Which is the case for E.T.)  From what I've seen, no one's really pushed past that point to explore the perspectives of film scholars.  I would imagine that an appropriate strategy to initiate change would be from bottom-up rather than top-down.  I think it would take a number of 2007 FACs that explore films' critical interpretations to have editors comfortable with having the guidelines evolve.  Obviously, you've seen the mindset that many films wouldn't have themes, and I wouldn't be surprised if other editors part of WikiProject Films felt this way.  It would take attributable evidence to show editors that this expanded approach is possible and acceptable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There aren't many FAs or GAs overall, anyway. I looked at both FA and GA articles as well as B and Start articles. What caused my dismay was the fact that there weren't even stubby theme sections on incomplete pages nor was there any mention on the talk pages of these articles that such a section was missing. (I am speaking of "active" pages here - page where it appears that editors are currently working to improve them.) Awadewit | talk  19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is true that FA and GA articles take a lot of time (mine take weeks or months and I have already done most of the research), but that is what I feel a guideline should communicate: here is what we are aiming for in our best articles.
 * Future films are, of course, a special case; I myself would not want to write on future films or future books since almost everything I wrote would eventually have to be replaced. However, I realize that wikipedia has become a source for this kind of information and there are people who want to write it, so I accept that. I assume that future films have their own guidelines since a "reception" section would be impossible for them. Awadewit | talk  19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure that Fight Club could be called an "old" film since it is from 1999. I think we would have to go back at least thirty years or so for something to be called "old." Films have been around since the beginning of the century, so a seven-year-old film is hardly "old," even though it may seem old in an individual person's memory. Historical context is everything. Awadewit | talk  19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are obviously many FAs that do not meet the current FA standards. I have refrained from submitting the film articles I found there that were clearly incomplete to FAR because I don't like that kind of antagonism. I felt it would be better to change the standards in general so that future articles will be better. Also, I don't know if there are people willing to fix the pages. Awadewit | talk  19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that an appropriate strategy to initiate change would be from bottom-up rather than top-down. - Perhaps, but I have decided to edit/write pages on topics with which I am familiar and already have most of the material at hand. I was thinking that doing a "sample" film article that includes all of this material might be helpful, but the time, the time just to prove an obvious point. It would be nice if editors could accept abstract arguments, too. At least Blade Runner has a themes section (even a whole subpage), although it could probably be sourced better. Awadewit | talk  19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I got involved with working on future films to be ahead of the curve in production updates. When I first came to Wikipedia, the task of improving an article of a film, especially a well-known film, was daunting.  I've gradually begun achieving some focus on older films, and when I called Fight Club an older film, I meant relative to what I have been doing with upcoming features.  I don't have tremendous skill with research, so it's a process of creeping back in time.
 * Research is a valuable skill. It takes a while to learn to do it well, but its usefulness goes beyond wikipedia. I research all sorts of topics that I have questions about. Sometimes I see claims in the news or from a politician that seem absurd. To be able to research those sorts of things is incredibly enlightening. I believe that the book I mentioned above, A Short Guide to Writing About Film has a section on research in it. Awadewit | talk  20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was aware of Themes in Blade Runner, and when discussion took place about themes in films, I went to check it out. Imagine my disappointment at the poor referencing for such a film.  Would that be a setup with which you might be agreeable?  Also, in regard to intended themes in a film, are such details irrelevant, based on your argument of intentional fallacy?  I wasn't sure about the application of this; I've encountered some films where they basically explain what everything in a film means, and some films that are left up to interpretation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that much of that page should be forked off - the "novel," "games and comics," and "documentaries" sections seem to me tangential to the main topic. They could be their own pages, if there is enough material, or a combined page on "Blade Runner media" or something like that. Some of what is in "Production" belongs in a "Cinematic style" section and more would need to be added on that topic. Also, the "versions" section seems long to me in comparison with the other sections - it seems to have disproportionate weight. While the article has a lot of good information, I am not sure that it is arranged well. (I really have no idea where to put the "Cast" section - at the end?) Awadewit | talk  20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Intended themes" are not irrelevant, they are just not the sole interpretation available. Also, as many scholars have successfully argued, it is actually impossible to know what the "intended" theme is. This is so for many reasons: many times the author/director is dead and has left no statement of the themes, the author/director may be intentionally deceiving people with his statements of the theme or giving contradictory interpretations to critics (David Lynch is famous for this kind of thing - he just says whatever when people interview him), or the author/director may not actually know what s/he intended. Moreover, all films can be interpreted because meaning comes from the viewer. What you see in Pirates of the Caribbean 3 and what I see are probably very different: I see a partial indictment of American capitalism, an indictment of America's current foreign policy, and racial stereotyping, to name a few. That is part of my interpretation of the film. Others may focus on the glorification of violence or the "industry" that Pirates has become and interpret it in light of its phenomenal box-office success. All of these interpretations are valid because they can be supported with evidence and good arguments. I assume that what you are referring to is the impression you get when you go to a movie and it is hitting you over the head with its message, but those themes are not the only themes in the movie. For example, in Shrek (I am trying to pick another movie you might have seen that I can discuss intelligently) the movie obviously wants you to believe that beauty is irrelevant, but if that is so, why can't an ogre marry a beautiful princess? Why does the princess have to become a "matching," ugly ogre at the end? Those kinds of details undercut the so-called "meaning" of the film and are generally what produce interesting interpretations. You can, therefore, argue that Shrek only reinforces that idea that beauty matters: beautiful people pair up with beautiful people and ugly people with ugly people (to put it bluntly). Thus, although the film has what we call an "overt" meaning, that doesn't also mean that it has other meanings, intentional or not, that may or not contradict that "overt" meaning. What usually produces these other meanings buried inside films is the culture surrounding it, so it is not surprising that films such as Legally Blonde or G. I. Jane which purport to be about strong women also severely undercut those images because we live in a society that does yet accept male/female equality. (In Legally Blonde, for example, the heroine wins the trial at the climax of the movie through her knowledge of hair products. Hardly a rousing feminist statement since women have been exclusively associated with beauty and beauty products for hundreds of years.) Awadewit |  talk  20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) You don't have to dumb down your selected examples that much. :) (Though I've seen these movies, sigh...)  It would be fascinating to read all the critical interpretations of a Lynch film.  I will have to explore the critical interpretations of the films whose articles I had planned to improve.  I've had my mind closed off to such notions until now.  Interesting how a little dialogue can alter one's perspective in a big way.  Thank you for your time and comments.  It shall be interesting to see what direction I'll be going from here. (P.S. What was the element in G.I. Jane that undercut the attempted presentation of strong women?) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to dumb down - sorry, I was trying to pick "films that are popular," not "films that are tripe" or "films that are for kids." I actually think Shrek is a fascinating and clever movie and I would love to teach it someday as an "adult fairy tale" (kids miss most of the jokes). In G.I. Jane, the heroine is only accepted after she "becomes a man." There are a series of scenes that demonstrate this with language (I believe that there is a dramatic scene involving her claiming to have "balls") and with her body (in a central scene, she shaves her head; we also learn that she no longer menstruates after she has bulked up - the bulking scenes are very "masculine," too). It is only after becoming fully "masculinized" in the film that she is accepted by the other men in her company. The question then becomes, why she can't be accepted as a feminine woman. The film wants to claim that men and women can be equal, particularly in the military; one can argue that this message is undercut by the fact that the woman has to sacrifice everything about her that makes her a woman and/or feminine. I am always happy to discuss these issues; I'm glad that my comments have been of use to you. Awadewit | talk  20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare's influence
Please check out William_Shakespeare when you get a chance. I wasn't expecting you to respond to my comment on the peer review so quickly and I was still revising the section when you responded. I believe I addressed almost all of your concerns. The only thing I didn't get into was exactly how Shakespeare influenced those different writers. I believe that's too much detail (heck, whole books have been written on his influence on each of those writers). To me, the article should just give examples of a few of the writers who admit to being influenced by him; the specifics of that influence would ideally be in those authors' articles. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is better (although I think that we can still improve the prose a bit - it sounds a bit chatty). I am not asking for paragraphs of information on each writer - you are right that such detail belongs on those authors' pages - but without any detail at all, the claim that you are making sounds vacuous. I would settle for small phrases - just give the reader some evidence to back up your claim beyond a citation. If you want them to buy the argument, you have to do that. The sources are just there to verify your claims and your evidence. Awadewit | talk  20:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. I'll dig up the books on this subject and see if I can give pithy examples for the three named novelists. Did the example given for the Romantic poets work for you?--Alabamaboy 20:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is too vague in my opinion - what themes? Also, the Steiner quote does not seem to be about Romantic poets. The time frame from Coleridge to Tennyson includes Romantic and Victorian poets. Also, is Steiner referring to drama or poetry? That is not clear to me. Awadewit | talk  20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply
The Film folk are pretty set in their ways, and I haven't had much luck with any change on their articles. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Too bad for the readers, huh? Awadewit | talk  23:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Voldi Way
Not sure why you think I might be interested in this article. I made some minor edits. Schmiteye 04:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, for some unknown reason I thought you had created the page at the time. My ability to read lists of names must seriously be diminishing. Awadewit | talk  05:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete
Why did you contact me about the speedy delete re: Tuomo Vuolteenaho? Did I have something to do with that? That name doesn't ring a bell. --Christofurio 10:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whenever I request a page for speedy delete, I try to alert the creator of the page. I went back to the page to see if I had made a mistake, but it has already been deleted. Awadewit | talk  16:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare's influence
I know you're busy, but I hope you'll check out William_Shakespeare. I've added in explanations of how Shakespeare influenced the novelists and poets. Let me know what you think. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that the examples are good. I had one question, which I inserted as an internal comment. Otherwise, I just did some copy editing. The paragraphs were a bit wordy (e.g. "the fact that..."). Feel free to re-edit if you feel I have distorted any of the claims you are making. Awadewit | talk  03:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your copyedits are perfect. Many thanks for all the critiques and assist on this section. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Per another editor's comments, I've expanded this Influences section again. The other editor actually wanted more info in the lead, but to fix that I had to expand the section. I'm also working on the performance history and poetry issues you raised but that will take a bit more time. Thanks again for the great critiques. Of all the literary editors here, you're appear to be at the top in regards to knowledge and understanding of the subject. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now added a section on the performance history. I'll work on the addition to the poems tomorrow night. Best, --Alabamaboy 02:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I will look at it in the next day or so. I realize how difficult the Shakespeare page must be to write, but as a literary scholar I really want it to be good because so much of what is written on literary figures here is so very bad. I know that professors analyze the reliability of wikipedia and its progress by looking at the Shakespeare page, so to make it solid is, I believe, very important. Awadewit | talk  02:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you check out the new info. I should also add that I've also addressed the issue you raised with regards to the longer poems.--Alabamaboy 13:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cinematic styles
Hi again. I've been envisioning film articles that provide critical interpretations, and I was wondering if you could define cinematic styles for me. How is it distinct from themes? Is it supposed to be the intended style, like at Road to Perdition, or a study of whatever the unintended style is? If it's the latter, then I'm curious as to the distinction between the two subtopics of your proposal. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a broad term. I would anticipate that topics such as storyboarding, editing, cinematography, music, and cinematic techniques would be covered. Depending on the amount of information available or the relative importance of each topic to a particularly movie, some of these topics might even have their entire subsection or even section (I have seen "Music" sections). Note also, that the style contributes to the meaning of the film since different styles signify different ideas; the style can be interpreted in many ways, just like the themes - it is not just about the "intention" of the filmmaker, editor, composer, etc. If you haven't already, I would suggest watching the hours of footage on the Lord of the Rings DVDs that detail how the film was made. Peter Jackson talks a lot about these topics and every one of them is covered at great length. There are books available, too, but this is a more fun way, I think. I will list some specific examples of the kinds of topics I am thinking about:
 * James Cameron is notorious for using the color blue - what does it mean? Some parts of Titanic, for example, are this distinctive blue color and others are not - why? What do the color changes convey to the viewer?
 * Alfred Hitchcock made a film called The Rope that has only a handful of very long shots - there are very few cuts. How is watching that kind of film different from watching a movie with lots of fast cuts and what meaning does it convey to the viewer? One could juxtapose that to something like Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers which has a lot of fast cuts. There is a different feel to the movie as a result of these differing techniques.
 * High Noon presents its plot almost completely in "real time" (that is only two hours or so go by in the movie, just like for the viewer). How does this affect the viewer? What meanings does it help to create? It is a very unusual technique.
 * Dr. Strangelove uses very jarring musical selections in its score - why? How does the music change the viewer's interpretation of the film? (A famous trick in introductory film classes is to play a scene from this movie without the sound and then with the sound - students often perceive the meaning of the scene completely differently with the music.) Awadewit | talk  03:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I read your proposal for the new sections: Cinematic style and Themes. Definitely a good idea.  I don't have much time lately so I'm going to steer clear of this debate, but hopefully people take your suggestions as guidelines.  As well, you're right about the authorship section in Shakespeare's article. You hear about the authorship issue in popular culture all the time, and it needs to be stated that it's completely discredited among experts.  I see your tough criticisms here and there, and they're absolutely needed though painful for some. :) BillDeanCarter 05:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. I think I need to find a way to be tough but tactful. I don't always achieve that. Awadewit | talk  05:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Priestley
Thanks for the comment -- I see that now, and I'll hold off. Cheers, Mackan79 13:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FAC William Shakespeare
Can you highlight any more sentences for me (or someone else) to look at? Thanks, RedRabbit1983 06:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If I highlight every problematic sentence, then I might as well copy edit the article myself. I am not particularly interested in that job at the moment. Do you not know any good copy editors to ask to help you out? Awadewit | talk  06:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'd do it myself, but I visit the article too often.


 * By the way, do you remember Brainmuncher? :) RedRabbit1983 09:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, why? Awadewit | talk  09:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed my identity. I don't think I'll revive Brainmuncher. RedRabbit1983 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I wondered if that was it. I have thought about doing that myself because I dislike my username (I didn't think about it at all when I made it), but I'm not sure I want to try and build up trusting relationships with people again. It is convenient for me that when certain editors see my username, they associate quality articles and picky peer reviewing with it. Why did you change? (By the way, now I feel like I owe you a copy editing job. If you want me to do Shakespeare, let me know.) Awadewit | talk  09:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I chose a ridiculous name so I wouldn't grow attached to it. But even so, my life here started crossing over with my real life, even though I never wanted to get too involved. I believe my contributions here should amount to less than my real-life activities. Kudos for editing was nice, but not something to treasure for ever. I would be a contributor instead of an editor of minutiae, but I dare not venture past the sign: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." And I have a terrible library record, making me an unwelcome visitor. RedRabbit1983 06:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I, too, have done more than I can really afford. Happily for me, most of the article I work on are obscure or haven't attracted that much attention, so my writing isn't edited mercilessly. I have absolutely no interest in editing controversial or well-known pages. I might do Jane Austen sometime, simply because for my dissertation I am going to read quite a bit about her as well as a lot of scholarship, but I shudder at revising the page with all of the "Janeites." Awadewit | talk  06:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Paine
Hey, taking a look, good stuff. Some things are obviously style; I tend to remove most style, but if there's anything you think is important you can always undo me. Thanks, Mackan79 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I would say that nearly everything you did was an improvement - that is quite the compliment. I usually have to remove most the copy edits from articles that I am working on because they either change the meaning or make the sentences incomprehensible. Awadewit | talk  02:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all your fixes look good as well. I figured sometimes I'd try a few things snippier, and then you could fix for accuracy and so on.  Interesting article, though, and great work.  I read about half the book some time ago; I feel like there's more on Paine being ostracized in the U.S. later in his life that could be added, but I may have to look that up.  It also has some significance in the debate over Separation of church and state, as an example of what one early influential American was thinking, though I'm not sure that really needs to be mentioned.  Anyway, feel free to let me know about any other articles you're working on that could use a second glance. Mackan79 14:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments. You are right that there is a lot of good information on Paine's reputation, for example, how his friendship with Jefferson was used against Jefferson in his Presidential run. I wasn't sure that that information was relevant to a page on The Age of Reason. I thought perhaps that information was more relevant to the Thomas Paine page. But perhaps I'll add in some more on that. I have a page up for FAC right now, Mary Martha Sherwood. It could do with a once-over as well, I think. I really do appreciate your work. It is difficult to step back from one's own writing and see all of the problems with it. Awadewit | talk  16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down
Could you calm down about the quote I did there? I wasn't trying to point fingers at you, so much as poke fun at the whole history the Shakespeare project has had with the subject. Please don't take it so seriously. Can we just relax a little here? Who cares if it's out of context? It's true for the whole history of our situation with the authorship question even if it is! And I'm certainly not planning on sticking it on the main page anytime soon. So... No worries. Wrad 05:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm calm. I was simply trying to illustrate the problems of such tactics. And whether or not you take the Shakespeare page seriously, I do. Since I am a scholar and I work in this field, I am probably more invested in it than some of the editors. Also, I am tired of explaining the same points over and over again on wikipedia (such as what sources are reliable). To me, editors should be able to read the policy on reliable sources and determine whether or not their sources are reliable. Yet, that is often not the case and I am reduced to a point-by-point elaboration of why sources are unreliable. I have done this more times than I can count and it is not very heartening (it is also very time consuming and boring). There is no reason for the policies if editors do not read them or cannot understand them. Like I said in my post, I am simply waiting for a good argument to convince me that I am wrong on this point. Awadewit | talk  06:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'm different. I like to laugh a little while I work, but I can understand where your sense of humor can get lost.  You take on a tough responsibility.  Just for the record, you're one of the few peer reviewers I've met who has any real backbone or substance to him, and that doesn't include just wikipedia. Wrad 16:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. I do try to be funny once in a while, but humor has never been my strong suit. I'll have to work on that since I am here for fun as well. :) By the way, do you think that it's my aggressiveness and "backbone" that cause so many people to assume that I'm a "he"? I find it amusing. No one has yet assumed that I'm a "she." Awadewit | talk  16:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pretty weird. Actually, the toughest reviewers I've met are all women. Coincidence? Maybe. Who knows? :) Wrad 18:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit | talk, is the non-removal of the reputation section going to be a deal breaker on you ever supporting the Shakespeare FAC? I proposed a compromise, that we leave the short paragraph in for now then discuss after the FAC whether or not is should be there. I don't want this minor issue keeping you from supporting the article at some point.--Alabamaboy 17:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a deal breaker for me. But I'm not sure that such decisions should be made after an FAC. Shouldn't all of the hard stuff be decided before? Since the page is supposed to be relatively stable for FAC, I'm not sure that postponing the discussion of whether or not to keep an entire subsection is good precedent. Pages that pass FAC, I thought, were supposed to be in something like a "final" form (at least the final form for that set of editors). Awadewit | talk  17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do hope FAs are in a final form, but that doesn't mean they still can't be edited. While I agree about the precedent issue, I just don't see the discussion on this during the FAC coming to a new consensus. But after the FAC, that might happen.--Alabamaboy 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that they can still be edited (that's why I specified "this set of editors"), but one would hope that all major sections that should be included are included in the article and that nothing untoward is being included. Awadewit | talk  17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Still no argument from me. I should note that an editor has replaced some of the sources you questioned in that authorship section with academic sources. --Alabamaboy 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Authorship and copyediting
I think this settles the authorship issue:. I've listed my concerns about the prose on the talk page. Now I need someone to copyedit the page. RedRabbit1983 07:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Chronology and Perfomances sections need a competent copyeditor. That is more than I claim of myself, and I am impaired by familiarity. Your page says you're busy, so I will pray that you're discharged of obligations soon. RedRabbit1983 13:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mozart piano concertos
Many thanks indeed for your most helpful comments. I'll do some work on the article (of course, getting it to FA status would be nice!).

Meanwhile, good luck on your other projects, e.g. Jane Austen (!): fine, fine choice....

Cheers

Graham

--Grahbudd 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I hope it wasn't too overwhelming. I tend to give very thorough peer reviews, for better or worse. Awadewit | talk  23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

redirects
To makes something a redirect, you create the page with the text " #REDIRECT Redirect target ". If the page already exists as a disambiguation page, first move it to Page (disambiguation), then change the former location to the proper redirect and add the redirect template to the new target page. Let me know if parts of that are unintelligible.--ragesoss 22:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining that as well as doing it. Awadewit | talk  23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Paint Shop Pro
Hi Awadewit, what version of PaintShopPro do you have? It will help me point you in the right direction, and help me better understand how to help you use it for your images. Cheers. :) - Jeeny Talk 05:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * XI. Thanks! Awadewit | talk  09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to cut and resave some images for Priestley Riots, but they seem to have retained white space? Do you know what happened there and would you mind fixing my screw-ups? Thanks. Awadewit | talk  19:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Well, I have version 7 and it's a lot different. I just looked up the version you have and can't believe it's so inexpensive. And lots of cool effects too. I paid over $120 for mine. Oh well. Anyway, when you looked at the image in PSP did you see the white space? Or did you just scan it into the program without looking at the image? lol. I'm sorry, I can't understand how you couldn't see the white space. Here's a tutorial online to help you get familiar with the crop tool. There are other tutorials for other tools on that site too. It's much too difficult to explain without the visual clues, and I don't have that version and like I said, it's different. Here's a link about the crop tool.- Jeeny Talk 20:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Happily, I didn't have to buy it. I got it as part of university software package or something. Or maybe I paid $5 for it. Anyway, cool for me. The white space appeared after I "cut" the image and pasted it into a new file. I didn't think that the white "background" would upload with the newly cut image. Awadewit | talk  22:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish I had the original files because after cropping the white space the images are very small and there's barely any detail. I don't have the software to blow them up, and keep the clarity. They look better in the article though. :) - Jeeny Talk 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There are all available on the internet - I put links to them in the file descriptions on wikimedia commons. Thanks for all of the help! Awadewit | talk  22:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just now looked at the originals. They're not much better. I wonder now, if you wanted to keep the gray border? I did include the border the first time I uploaded them. So, if you revert the ones there now, they will have the border, from my first upload. You are welcome anytime. :) - Jeeny Talk 23:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They look great! Thanks so much! Awadewit | talk  18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry. Ceoil 10:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I just didn't want some FAC reviewer to come along and object based on 1a. :) You will notice that I retained almost all of your edits - thanks for helping out! Awadewit | talk  10:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare FAC
I've withdrawn my support for the Shakespeare FAC until people can agree on the authorship language and stop edit warring. While I'm sure you're sick of all this back and forth, I'd appreciate it if you'd join in at Talk:William_Shakespeare. Best,--Alabamaboy 22:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I feel my participation would be fruitless. I have stated my objections (no reliable sources and not a major debate) repeatedly. I have agreed to compromise on inclusion IF reliable sources are found. This has not happened yet, unfortunately, and I have already spent hours checking up on people's sources. That kind of thing should have been done before the article was brought to FAC. I was actually just about to post a sentence saying that I encourage the editors to contact me after they have come to an agreement and found reliable sources and then I would reconsider the page. Awadewit | talk  22:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources have been added, but with the ongoing debate none of that matters. I'm tired of this bull#%#$ POV pushing around this issue. Unless this is resolve ASAP, I will leave my oppose and state that the article doesn't deserve to be a FA.--Alabamaboy 22:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think I've been pushing a POV. I feel that the instability alone means that it cannot pass FA. Awadewit | talk  23:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this the wrong way, but yes, I feel you were pushing a POV. I actually agree with your view on the authorship issue, but I feel you approached the issue in an overly POV manner. For example, you just said the authorship section lacks academic citations. The citations in the section are: Kathman, David "The question of authorship" in Wells, Stanley (ed.) (2003). Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide. Oxford Univesity Press, 620. ISBN 0-19-924522-3; Schoenbaum, S. (1993). Shakespeare's Lives, 2nd, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-283155-0; and Holderness, Graham (1988). The Shakespeare Myth. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-2635-0. All academic cites and those citations apply to the entire section. As for different candidates for authorship, requiring that a specific citation for them be to "Shakespearean scholars" who support the view (unless I'm misunderstanding you) is an incredibly high hurdle considering that this subsection is describing a "popular" view of Shakespeare, not a scholarly view. I feel you are requiring a higher level of citations for this section than is required for the rest of the article (which already has a higher level of citations, and is of higher quality, than almost any other article on Wikipedia). But that is your choice. Best, --Alabamaboy 23:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that it is acceptable to cite this section to popular sources. That is the entire point of what I am saying. Popular views are irrelevant since wikipedia is supposed to base its articles on reliable sources. The article should summarily dismiss the issue in a single sentence and direct people to the authorship page. It should not entertain preposterous views put forth by random people. There is no way to then distinguish between what theories are going to be included and which ones excluded. The "reliable sources" and "undue weight" policies are excellent guidelines for making those decisions - if no reputable scholar supports the view, then the view is not included. Why do you think such ideas have persisted? It is precisely because of this kind of compromise - "a lot of people believe this or think about it, so it should be included." That is flawed logic.


 * I am sorry to say this, but this article does not have a higher level of citation and "almost any other article on wikipedia." Every article I have written has better sourcing and I have seen many more (particularly science articles) that are sourced much better than this. Furthermore, I have seen many articles arrive at FAC with their reputable sources already cited. I am not sure why this was not one of them. It is hard to write Shakespeare's article, yes, because there is so much scholarship to read, but that is no excuse for shoddy work. I was deeply upset to see that the editors were not doing real research for this article and expected the reviewers to evaluate their sources for them. Awadewit | talk  23:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit, while I do think you're overly caught up in this authorship debate, please understand that I have nothing but the highest respect for your amazing work here. Yes, I agree--your articles are among the best literary articles on Wikipedia and have the best sourcing I've seen around here. The difference, though, is that most of your articles have focused on relatively obscure subjects over which there isn't a ton of popular controversy. Please don't take this as a criticism; many of my own articles have focused on similarly obscure subjects and you've done a much better job than me in both sourcing and writing on such articles.

Most of the best articles on Wikipedia are on non-controversial, relatively obscure subjects b/c you can have one or two highly knowledgeable editors write and source out the entire article. For such a high-profile article, Shakespeare is one of the best with great sourcing and factual info. Because this article is ranked among the 50 most viewed articles on Wikipedia, it attracted a lot of attention during this FAC. When this many authors work on a controversial subject, consensus comes into play. Reliable sources does not state anything like "if no reputable scholar supports the view, then the view is not included." As I've said, I agree with you on the authorship debate, but enough important people over the years have supported the issue (such as George Greenwood) or debated the issue (see Gibson's excellent book The Shakespeare Claimants: A Critical Survey of the Four Principle Theories Concerning the Authorship of the Shakespearean Plays, published in 2005 by Routledge) that removing the now 48-word paragraph would risk violating NPOV (IMHO). Anyway, the editors involved have finally removed every reference except for academic sources referring to the debate (and I have even added in sources from Gibson's book). If you can support that, great. If not, I understand. BTW, while I initially agreed with your comment about all of this debate has made the article unstable, it turns out that the FA director has specifically stated that changes such as these during a FAC do not indicate an unstable article. Best, --Alabamaboy 12:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Awadewit, thank you so much for the barnstar award. It is you who deserves a very special award for all the REAL work you do on Wikipedia. I just fiddle around. Anyway, again, thank you! :) - Jeeny Talk 18:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the compliment, but don't sell yourself short! Aesthetics are crucial to wikipedia's success. People have to come to a page and be delighted with how it looks before they will read anything. How many websites have you gone to and refused to read them because of what a mess they were? You are on the front line in helping wikipedia get information out there! (Besides, since I am a former art history major and an English graduate student, I tend to think that images convey a lot of information to the reader as well!) Awadewit | talk  18:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. You are correct, there are many sites I see that I will not read because of the mess! I cringe many times at some articles and the layout. :) - Jeeny Talk 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)