Talk:Annie Hall

message: This article isn't a million miles away from GA status. It gets 1500 views a day, so it's worth getting it in better shape.
*The first Björkman (2004) reference covers its entire AH section. Specific page numbers should be given for each reference.
*The "Themes" section is in desperate need of development. At the moment we are ignoring a range of established scholars writing in peer-reviewed academic journals and books in favour of an online magazine. There is Peter Cowie's BFI monograph for a start. Anyone else have access to an academic journal database?
*The reception section needs development, ideally locating some negative comments for balance.
*Awards need to be in prose.
*Once it's in better shape, we can take it to Peer Review, then to GAN.
The referencing system, although complicated at first, is pretty easy once it's set up. You just need to copy and paste an existing reference and replace the appropriate fields. If stuck, just do it as plain text, and I'll fix it later. The JPStalk to me 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the "Style and technique" section be incorporated within the production section? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film doesn't accommodate this separate section. The JPStalk to me 23:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We should organize the article logically. The guidelines are just suggestions and not even very good at that. Given our material and the film itself, this seems like good organization, at least for now. For an example of really outstanding organization of a film article, check Titanic (1997 film) --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A developed casting section can be incorporated within a L1 pre-production heading then. I have uncovered several analytical sources. They will take time to read  and summarise (and I don't have an abundance of spare time ta the moment) -- but eventually we can develop that rather embarrassing 'themes' section. The JPStalk to me 09:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if it is "up to the editors", then I prefer the version in the guidelines. It separates the practical production issues (including writing) from the analysis and reception. What is your argument for your preferred version? The JPStalk to me 09:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing is not part of production. It happens before. The section on writing is about the writing and the section on production is about production. For an example of excellent organization of a film article, check Titanic (1997 film). Woody himself has repeated the old saw that a movie is created three times: writing, shooting, editing. Or, pre-production, production, post-production. The guidelines fall short in their knowledge of film culture (note the strange mentions of crew). --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: I think that some of those little paragraphs listed in the cast list should be moved elsewhere, for example the information on people noting similarities between the plot and Allen's real life could possibly be moved to the Legacy section. Also, the reports of Allen's poor treatment towards his actors should be moved to the Production section NoD'ohnuts (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Allen himself is in the cast, discussing the similarities between his life and his characters is similar to discussing any actor's identification or similarity to the character he is playing. The cast list normally includes material on the actors, the casting decisions, the actors and their relationship to their work, and that is what is covered in this material. And there is no Legacy section anyway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I can understand what you mean. And plus there is a Legacy section, I added one below the accolades section. I looked at another romantic comedy page, When Harry Met Sally... and noticed they have a Legacy section, so I thought Annie Hall should have one as well. NoD'ohnuts (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast list

message: I was wondering wheather anybody would object to the use of SparkNotes as a source for the "Themes" section, cause I've noticed they've got a lot to say about the themes, motifs and symbols for Annie Hall ~~ NoD'ohnuts (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that is a reliable source? Seems like we could do better. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it's reliable, but it's not the first thing I would go with. I'll search around for anyything that could help expand that section, but if I can't find anything reliable enough for that section, SparkNotes might be our best option. ~~ NoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: SparkNotes is better than that amateur website that's there at the moment, although the lack of named author (and their affiliation) is worrying, as is the overbearing amount of advertising. A search at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources doesn't suggest any particularity precedent either way -- if anything, SparkNotes comes out of it well. I've made some notes from Cowie that I need to add. This film deserves a better article than what it has at the moment: come on, NoD'ohnuts -- let's see what we can do! The JPStalk to me 17:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! Sure! :D I'll add the Spark Notes reference and we will see what happens during the Peer Review ~~ NoD'ohnuts (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: Do we want this list in the article? I have my doubts about it when it's basically covered in the text. I guess lists are frowned upon, as a rule. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these AFI lists look untidy, so would support its removal. Wikipedia is not a scrapbook. The JPStalk to me 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I would prefer to keep it; it's a very good summary of the AFI recognition the film has received NoD'ohnuts (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a relateively recent discussion here. I suppose we could keep it for now and see what happens when we take it to Peer Review. Although it's not sourced at the moment, which is not great... The JPStalk to me 19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a source for all of them, so it's all good. ~~ NoD'ohnuts (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the issue is not the sourcing. There is a question if this list belongs here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the discussion linked above. I think this is a matter for the page editors to hash out but I am not sure. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the discussion seemed to suggest a consensus that it should be turned into prose. The JPStalk to me 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a consensus on that. There were views expressed on both sides of the question. That's why I think it is a matter for page editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFI recognition list 

message: Is it worth it to separately mention the Cream of the Crop when it's a difference between 98% and 100%? This is a dubious listing in the first place (other Allen films don't make the distinction) and it seems to indicate some kind of WP:Peacock thing. Of course, I am fine with praising the film's greatness, but I think it is more effective to highlight genuine accomplishments, honors, awards, etc. A lot of films have 100% from RT. Other things are more rare. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cream of the Crop 

message: I don't see the importance of including the precise inflation adjusted gross when it is a number that changes every day. The comparison is important, the comparison to other films, but the number itself is superfluous. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation adjusted gross 

message: There is no dispute about this, just check the film's credits, or the poster. Because of that, Joffe alone won the 1977 Academy Award for Best Picture, as the article correctly says. Jack Rollins was his business partner. They both managed well-known comics. But they decided Joffe would focus on Allen, and Rollins on others. So Rollins took no producer credit on this film or several others in the 1970s. There was much discussion of this policy on the Talk page for Template:Infobox film, which clearly says Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc. I'm sure that also excludes uncredited business partners. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Charles H. Joffe]] had sole credit as producer on this film 

message: Annie Hall is grouped into both of these categories. After viewing the film I see no indication that it takes place in any year other than 1977.
:What says "1977"? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films set in the 1940s; Films set in the 1960s 

message: According to the following Awards should be used and stand alone without "and Honors." What is the correct form on this:
NOTE: From The English Patient, the edit summary of a very involved wikian: "Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,948 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (→‎Awards And Honors:  Rm. " And Honors" from sub-heading See WP:MOS) (undo)"
Would someone of this caliber do something contrary to WP? I would hope not.76.170.88.72 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and any accompanying title designation ? 

message: In trying to build consensus, how about, in addition to the lead's comments regarding that the movie is about the search for love, we incorporate Erik's suggestion: "... that academics have noted the contrast in the settings of New York City and Los Angeles, the stereotype of gender differences in sexuality, the presentation of Jewish identity, and the elements of psychoanalysis and modernism"? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: SupportYup I'd be happy with that. Anybody else?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Support I'd be happy with that too: it summarises a themes section that covers the aspects of the film that have been identified by numerous reliable sources. Although this may be, at face value, a love story, there are other important themes that the reliable sources have identified, and if we are to keep in line with WP:LEAD, we need to reflect this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Support That sounds good to me. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  14:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should also include the names of the entire cast, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: They are in the article, in the themes section, where everything is supported by reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go: . -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Read the entire article link and you shall see that everyone's view here is supported.  There is more than one major theme in the film.  Allen has never been superficial in his screenwriting.  There is always more than one major theme in his films.  Annie Hall is no exception. You wanted a reliable source that supports views on this other than you own and I provided it.  To cherry pick quotes is unhelpful and dishonest. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  16:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. Offer the quotes that you claim support your view. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would urge everyone commenting here to read the article that Winkelvi claims supports the proposal. Apparently it's his very best effort to find a source that says there are other major themes besides love and relationships. There is nothing in it about academics, New York, Los Angeles, stereotypes, sexuality, Jewish identity, psychoanalysis or modernism. In fact, none of these words even appear in the article. Yet Winkelvi claims this supports the proposal. Amazing! --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Not sure how this was deleted in the last posting, but I'll repeat: - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and other sources identify other themes. No one is denying that one of the themes is love, but there are others too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no source to back the idea that something else is a major theme? I am not surprised. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the above, there are sources in the article, and please keep the snarkiness out of your comments: it's not helpful to anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Still have no sources to support the idea that something else is a major theme? When will you give us the sources that say these other things are major themes? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes it is a love story, but it also has some very notable "motifs" like psychoanalysis and Jewish identity which are widely discussed by notable film scholars. Just look in google books. These are valuable components of the article and the lead should at least summarize in a line what scholars go into hundreds of pages about over many books. All we need is to rename the Themes section Critical analysis to avoid implying all are equal "themes". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Motifs are not themes, so I agree. Your claim that these secondary matters are widely discussed should be supported with sources. Please provide the many sources. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Not too many to list here. I notice one was a high school study guide anonymously authored. Another was SparkNotes? Rather weak when I'm citing major publications. As I have been saying, the Themes section is badly butchered, with weak sourcing and distinct lack of understanding about the difference between theme, motif, symbol and trope. That should be rewritten before the lead is infected with the same inferior material. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak??? There's enough reliable scholarly material in those links to sink a battleship!! Themes is only "badly butchered" according to you because you didn't write it, and Ring Cinema is He-Man, Master of the Universe. Everybody else is always wrong and he's always right, the jedi master and Ring wraith/Sauron of world cinema. How dare lesser mortals interfere with the great one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: You are offering film reviews. Others are offing more academic sources. Both play to different readerships and we balance the two. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text:  Ring Cinema, why can we not call the section "Critical analysis"? We would not be saying that these sub-topics are themes per se. They are instead parts of the film that have been critically analyzed by academics. This way, we can identify this set of sub-topics more accurately. If it needs rewriting (and I agree about replacing Spark Notes with something better), that still does not negate entirely the parts mentioned in the proposed sentence above. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add the Spark Notes source, I agree the name doesn't sound great but look in the google links I provided. That isn't trivial coverage is it Erik? All we'd need to do is replace the section title with "Critical analysis" and then immediately we don't confuse motifs and symbols and themes etc.. There's nothing wrong with the content in that section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: You are relying on a high school study guide with no author. Again, which six sources support your view? I'm still interested to know on whom you rely. Name your sources and quote them as I have done. If you can't, perhaps you and Winkelvi are both claiming there is support where there is none. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: I listed six sources and quoted a key passage from each. Winkelvi contributed a seventh. None of the proponents of this proposal have cited a single source to support their view. You claim there are many sources but have mentioned none. You disavow the source that was practically plagiarized for the Themes section. Winkelvi claimed he had a source but he couldn't even find a source that mentioned in passing these other themes. So it is really looking like there is no support for the proposal from any source at all. Do you have 7? I have 7. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *This seems a very one-sided argument, where  is disagreeing with everyone else. The section on "Themes" is quite long, a significant part of the total article, and is well-sourced (references 35-53). It should therefore be summarized in the lead. Renaming it "Critical analysis" would not affect that. If  can gain consensus for removing this section, then of course it does not need to be summarized in the lead. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And proportionately the length of the themes section is proportionate to what is documented in reliable books covering the film and that's the way it should be of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: I see fairly strong consensus (though not unanimity) above for the addition of the sentence proposed by Erik to the lead section. There has been less discussion of the placement of the "Casting" section, but for now there is a weaker consensus to leave it at its current location as a subsection of Production. The content of the Themes section has been raised in the section by Aymatth2 below and should continue to be discussed there. For the moment, I am going to unprotect the article and add Erik's sentence to the lead.
All that said: if I see further edit-warring here, and/or a continuation of the personalization, accusations, and attacks above, I am far more likely to consider blocks as an option alongside or even instead of protection, depending on circumstances. If you disagree with my reading of the above, or simply feel more opinions are needed, I would encourage you to open a RFC on the issue or pursue some other form of dispute resolution. Of course you should also discuss concerns and proposals here, particularly for the issue raised below. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-protection

message: The debate above is not about the plot, the production or the reception. It is about the analysis of the movie. At one extreme is the view that nothing in the "themes" section deserves mention in the lead. Annie Hall is just a standard romantic comedy. At the other extreme is the view that the "themes" section is the core of the article, since this is what distinguishes the film from thousands of others. This is to ask for views on how to resolve the issue. I suggest first discussing which sub-topics should be covered in the "Themes" section. After this has been resolved, and only then, we should discuss each of the assertions and sources in the "themes" section. A sentence-by-sentence approach. The end result would be a version that reflects consensus. Would another approach be more efficient? Thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very strange that you think discussion with me leads to nothing. I have repeatedly urged everyone to back their claims with sources as I have done. That is how Wikipedia works. Now, if the sources don't agree with you, I'd suggest you change your views about what should be in the article. I am following the sources. You are frustrated because I insist -- quite rightly -- that you back your claims with good sources. If it's too much bother, then let the rest of us handle it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Actually, I responded to your sources and pointed out the problems with them. You didn't respond to that, I believe. Winkelvi said he had a source and it wasn't one at all. Your sources are all pretty dubious and capable of multiple interpretations. I asked you to back up your claims for a couple days before you finally took that minimal step, and then there were problems with them. So, if you seriously believe your sources are good -- the four that you listed next to my seven -- go back and defend them where I criticized them. That is discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

text: It's not my version, it's the current consensus. Blofeld, you changed the meaning, as I said. You don't know the difference between "the film marked an advance for the director" and "the film had an impact on the director"? Isn't it obvious to you the two are not the same? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Why take out that he was an important teacher? The original is just better, with more nice quotes and less of your opinion. For some reason, you take out Keating's opinion, which is interesting. What is superior about your draft? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as well, and it makes it your opinion instead of his. Just inferior. The one thing I agree on is that it would be nice to find a replacement for "laugh machines". Vivid but strange. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

text: You are making this ad hominem now instead of responding to my legitimate criticisms. Additionally, why are you dragging in "maturity"? That's not in the original. If you can improve the style without changing the meaning, that's good. Otherwise, the consensus version seems to be pretty good already and it's accurate, including all true statements without any OR. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

text: New to this discussion (and, full declaration, a regular WP colleague of Dr Blofeld). But in my view Dr B's version seems preferable. It conveys the same information without superfluity, and I support the shorter version. The quoting affects the flow of the text, and the sentence about odd pairing and laugh machines as Dr B says comes across as OR and, IMO, unencyclopaedic. Tim riley (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I doesn't convey the same information and nothing currently included is superfluous. The quotes make it clear who is the source of the opinion, which is actually quite significant in this case. That the director and the cinematographer were referred to as an odd pairing is a fact and it's up to the reader to decide what to make of it. What is really quite unencyclopedic is keeping interesting information from the readers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ring Cinema is of course entitled to have his/her views considered along with everyone else's, but I think "what is really quite unencyclopedic is keeping interesting information from the readers" slightly misses the point that it is our job as WP editors to write articles that home in on the essentials. "Interesting information" that is not central to the narrative can be footnoted, but oughtn't to obtrude into the main text. A footnote is always a possibility in such cases. Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Obtrude"? No, the facts don't obtrude. You seem intent on hiding from the readers that Diane Keaton agreed that Allen and Willis were an odd pairing. If you can't appreciate that the characterization of the two has more meaning when it comes from someone close to them, I think you have missed something very, very basic about what is dubious and what is credible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Taking  a spin through Blofeld's sandbox version, I see that it's a great improvement on the previous failed attempts at GAN. I think we have to look at why the GANs failed to see where the article was lacking, and the sandbox version seems to cover most of the issues raised. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Blofeld has offered many edits and it's not uncommon for his changes to get the facts wrong. As for GA, Blofeld mentioned to me privately that those editors may not have the best ideas. That was the case most recently and he thought it best to have this article fail so another editor could be assigned to it. Personally, I'm interested in making the article better, and if GA articles are worse, the honorific is empty. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony had some valid points actually, but yeah, I think he tends to overcook GA reviews to the point they end up being stalled and the review was in no man's land and clearly wasn't getting anywhere. I believe I've addressed most of the valid issues and improved it since and it's now ready for GA and if you can agree then the GA review can go ahead and it should pass fairly quickly. Common for me to get my facts wrong? Uh, where exactly? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

text: I think the article has improved since the last failure; the format of the GA system ensures that articles are improved, not worsened and that has been the case since the last failure. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, let's improve the article. As it happens that may or may not lead to GA status. The previous GA editor didn't know what a paragraph is, quite literally, so there other things beside empty honorifics. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Look at the draft under discussion. You needed to be told that you'd changed the meaning. On March 11, I corrected you on at least four factual errors that you introduced, some of the mistakes as blatant as this one. You're not a careful reader. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Stop the personal attacks, Ring. There is absolutely no need for that sort of comment. This is a collaborative project, not a battleground. The JPStalk to me 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to police personal attacks, talk to the others. Perhaps it's bothersome that my comments are completely factual; I literally corrected him five times in one day. Now, I really don't want to hear from you again until you have told the others who attacked me personally that they are out of line. I expect you to handle that promptly. Let me know when you've accomplished that and we'll talk. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

text: We do not have to fall over each other to achieve consensus. We are not in a sprint to get this done. One act by one person is not the reaching of consensus and taking deliberation and waiting to change something with deliberation is not de facto consensus; there has to be a sense of something being right as based on viable sources and as well have the feeling that how it is expressed is appropriate. No rush here. It is not as if fresh plaster has been laid down and all there is but one quick attempt to get it proper. And especially for those quoted items. It is a great disappointment to find that which was quoted when examining the source was never there. We should never be in a position that merely by something being "there" that it stands or is consensus. To some it may be slow and to some it may be tedious but I am not one to appreciate being railroaded. Maybe. what I think was from one source and in reality is real but not from the source that I previously thought was the source. I would accord that courtesy on others as I hope it is accorded me. Civil behavior is all that is asked.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're trying to criticize Ring Cinema it's not really very clear. You might have time to sit around discussing the most minor and trivial of article issues with people but I don't. I think it's ridiculous actually, comical even, that we have to resort to a consensus to add a single sentence. There's thousands of other articles needing basic attention. It should have never got this far.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting consensus in order to add a single sentence is something Ring Cinema has resorted to before at other articles.  You're right DB, it never should have gotten this far but it did because Ring Cinema forced it that direction.  Unfortunately for Wikipedia, it's not new behavior for him.  I would think that since his usual cadre of supporters haven't rallied around him by now he would get the hint he's in the wrong and just back off.  Unfortunately (again) for Wikipedia, he's chosen to continue with the disruptive direction he's chosen.  I applaud you for sticking with it; the article will be better off for your perseverance and patience. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  23:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ring Cinema--"Quid pro quo" has never been part of your interactions on WP and instead has either been to bring about your Sherman's March or a General Lee's Surrender over others that may find some discrepancy in article content contributions. You have a short fuse and it does not take much to spark it. WP does not put jingle in my pocket; does not pay my bills; and I do not use it to reaffirm my self-esteem. You disregard of yourself that which you expect of others. Wise up and "cease and desist". What you amend in the articles is always "the best" and that which you revert is always "the worst". You will insist (as they say, "Until the cows come home.) that something is consensus merely because it has existed with out question in an article and is later shown to be untrue for such a duration that when a source is found by others to prove differently it makes you appear the fool when attempting to strive for a quality article that includes well-mannered personal interactions. An apology is not going to erase your history so let it be.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

text: "Kol mah Sh'Talmid vatik atid l'horot lifnei rabbo, kevar n'emar L'Moshe B'Sinai (Whatever a seasoned scholar is destined to innovate before his master was already revealed to Moses at Sinai, 
Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 2.4). "The current version is the consensus version." is like saying that an apple is an apple. But the one in the fruit bowl on the dining room table is from the backyard tree and the one on display on the living room credenza is of wax. The destination is the goal but the journey is just as important. No need to criticize, have a concern, yes, but to criticize, well, no need to turn the milk sour so soon.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving on 

message: Another thing which I see Ring restored was the beginning of the style section which I'd copyedited to improve the flow:
My version:
Technically, the film had a considerable impact on Allen who considered Gordon Willis to be a "wizard" cinematographer, and he credits Willis and the film to be an important step in his maturity as a filmmaker. Despite the contrast in their styles, with Allen known for his hilarious farces and Willis known for his dark dramatic films like The Godfather, the two became friends during filming and continued the collaboration on several later films, including Zelig, which earned Willis his first Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography. 
Existing version:
Technically, the film marked an advance for the director. He selected Gordon Willis as his cinematographer—for Allen "a very important teacher" and a "technical wizard," saying, "I really count Annie Hall as the first step toward maturity in some way in making films." At the time, it was considered an "odd pairing" by many, Keaton among them. The director was famous for "laugh machines" and hilarious farces, while Willis was known as "the prince of darkness" for work on dramatic films like The Godfather. Despite this, the two became friends during filming and continued the collaboration on several later films, including Zelig, which earned Willis his first Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography.
:It's not my version, it's the current consensus. Blofeld, you changed the meaning, as I said. You don't know the difference between "the film marked an advance for the director" and "the film had an impact on the director"? Isn't it obvious to you the two are not the same? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why take out that he was an important teacher? The original is just better, with more nice quotes and less of your opinion. For some reason, you take out Keating's opinion, which is interesting. What is superior about your draft? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as well, and it makes it your opinion instead of his. Just inferior. The one thing I agree on is that it would be nice to find a replacement for "laugh machines". Vivid but strange. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

text: You are making this ad hominem now instead of responding to my legitimate criticisms. Additionally, why are you dragging in "maturity"? That's not in the original. If you can improve the style without changing the meaning, that's good. Otherwise, the consensus version seems to be pretty good already and it's accurate, including all true statements without any OR. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

text: New to this discussion (and, full declaration, a regular WP colleague of Dr Blofeld). But in my view Dr B's version seems preferable. It conveys the same information without superfluity, and I support the shorter version. The quoting affects the flow of the text, and the sentence about odd pairing and laugh machines as Dr B says comes across as OR and, IMO, unencyclopaedic. Tim riley (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I doesn't convey the same information and nothing currently included is superfluous. The quotes make it clear who is the source of the opinion, which is actually quite significant in this case. That the director and the cinematographer were referred to as an odd pairing is a fact and it's up to the reader to decide what to make of it. What is really quite unencyclopedic is keeping interesting information from the readers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ring Cinema is of course entitled to have his/her views considered along with everyone else's, but I think "what is really quite unencyclopedic is keeping interesting information from the readers" slightly misses the point that it is our job as WP editors to write articles that home in on the essentials. "Interesting information" that is not central to the narrative can be footnoted, but oughtn't to obtrude into the main text. A footnote is always a possibility in such cases. Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Obtrude"? No, the facts don't obtrude. You seem intent on hiding from the readers that Diane Keaton agreed that Allen and Willis were an odd pairing. If you can't appreciate that the characterization of the two has more meaning when it comes from someone close to them, I think you have missed something very, very basic about what is dubious and what is credible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Taking  a spin through Blofeld's sandbox version, I see that it's a great improvement on the previous failed attempts at GAN. I think we have to look at why the GANs failed to see where the article was lacking, and the sandbox version seems to cover most of the issues raised. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Blofeld has offered many edits and it's not uncommon for his changes to get the facts wrong. As for GA, Blofeld mentioned to me privately that those editors may not have the best ideas. That was the case most recently and he thought it best to have this article fail so another editor could be assigned to it. Personally, I'm interested in making the article better, and if GA articles are worse, the honorific is empty. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony had some valid points actually, but yeah, I think he tends to overcook GA reviews to the point they end up being stalled and the review was in no man's land and clearly wasn't getting anywhere. I believe I've addressed most of the valid issues and improved it since and it's now ready for GA and if you can agree then the GA review can go ahead and it should pass fairly quickly. Common for me to get my facts wrong? Uh, where exactly? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

text: I think the article has improved since the last failure; the format of the GA system ensures that articles are improved, not worsened and that has been the case since the last failure. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, let's improve the article. As it happens that may or may not lead to GA status. The previous GA editor didn't know what a paragraph is, quite literally, so there other things beside empty honorifics. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Look at the draft under discussion. You needed to be told that you'd changed the meaning. On March 11, I corrected you on at least four factual errors that you introduced, some of the mistakes as blatant as this one. You're not a careful reader. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Stop the personal attacks, Ring. There is absolutely no need for that sort of comment. This is a collaborative project, not a battleground. The JPStalk to me 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to police personal attacks, talk to the others. Perhaps it's bothersome that my comments are completely factual; I literally corrected him five times in one day. Now, I really don't want to hear from you again until you have told the others who attacked me personally that they are out of line. I expect you to handle that promptly. Let me know when you've accomplished that and we'll talk. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

text: We do not have to fall over each other to achieve consensus. We are not in a sprint to get this done. One act by one person is not the reaching of consensus and taking deliberation and waiting to change something with deliberation is not de facto consensus; there has to be a sense of something being right as based on viable sources and as well have the feeling that how it is expressed is appropriate. No rush here. It is not as if fresh plaster has been laid down and all there is but one quick attempt to get it proper. And especially for those quoted items. It is a great disappointment to find that which was quoted when examining the source was never there. We should never be in a position that merely by something being "there" that it stands or is consensus. To some it may be slow and to some it may be tedious but I am not one to appreciate being railroaded. Maybe. what I think was from one source and in reality is real but not from the source that I previously thought was the source. I would accord that courtesy on others as I hope it is accorded me. Civil behavior is all that is asked.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're trying to criticize Ring Cinema it's not really very clear. You might have time to sit around discussing the most minor and trivial of article issues with people but I don't. I think it's ridiculous actually, comical even, that we have to resort to a consensus to add a single sentence. There's thousands of other articles needing basic attention. It should have never got this far.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting consensus in order to add a single sentence is something Ring Cinema has resorted to before at other articles.  You're right DB, it never should have gotten this far but it did because Ring Cinema forced it that direction.  Unfortunately for Wikipedia, it's not new behavior for him.  I would think that since his usual cadre of supporters haven't rallied around him by now he would get the hint he's in the wrong and just back off.  Unfortunately (again) for Wikipedia, he's chosen to continue with the disruptive direction he's chosen.  I applaud you for sticking with it; the article will be better off for your perseverance and patience. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  23:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ring Cinema--"Quid pro quo" has never been part of your interactions on WP and instead has either been to bring about your Sherman's March or a General Lee's Surrender over others that may find some discrepancy in article content contributions. You have a short fuse and it does not take much to spark it. WP does not put jingle in my pocket; does not pay my bills; and I do not use it to reaffirm my self-esteem. You disregard of yourself that which you expect of others. Wise up and "cease and desist". What you amend in the articles is always "the best" and that which you revert is always "the worst". You will insist (as they say, "Until the cows come home.) that something is consensus merely because it has existed with out question in an article and is later shown to be untrue for such a duration that when a source is found by others to prove differently it makes you appear the fool when attempting to strive for a quality article that includes well-mannered personal interactions. An apology is not going to erase your history so let it be.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue 1:First paragraph of Style

message: I felt that the quoting was unnecessary in parts here and it was best condensed to improve the flow. I thought the "The director was famous for "laugh machines" " sounded unencyclopedic and " it was considered an "odd pairing" by many," was problematic and vague and OR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not have to fall over each other to achieve consensus. We are not in a sprint to get this done. One act by one person is not the reaching of consensus and taking deliberation and waiting to change something with deliberation is not de facto consensus; there has to be a sense of something being right as based on viable sources and as well have the feeling that how it is expressed is appropriate. No rush here. It is not as if fresh plaster has been laid down and all there is but one quick attempt to get it proper. And especially for those quoted items. It is a great disappointment to find that which was quoted when examining the source was never there. We should never be in a position that merely by something being "there" that it stands or is consensus. To some it may be slow and to some it may be tedious but I am not one to appreciate being railroaded. Maybe. what I think was from one source and in reality is real but not from the source that I previously thought was the source. I would accord that courtesy on others as I hope it is accorded me. Civil behavior is all that is asked.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're trying to criticize Ring Cinema it's not really very clear. You might have time to sit around discussing the most minor and trivial of article issues with people but I don't. I think it's ridiculous actually, comical even, that we have to resort to a consensus to add a single sentence. There's thousands of other articles needing basic attention. It should have never got this far.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting consensus in order to add a single sentence is something Ring Cinema has resorted to before at other articles.  You're right DB, it never should have gotten this far but it did because Ring Cinema forced it that direction.  Unfortunately for Wikipedia, it's not new behavior for him.  I would think that since his usual cadre of supporters haven't rallied around him by now he would get the hint he's in the wrong and just back off.  Unfortunately (again) for Wikipedia, he's chosen to continue with the disruptive direction he's chosen.  I applaud you for sticking with it; the article will be better off for your perseverance and patience. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  23:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ring Cinema--"Quid pro quo" has never been part of your interactions on WP and instead has either been to bring about your Sherman's March or a General Lee's Surrender over others that may find some discrepancy in article content contributions. You have a short fuse and it does not take much to spark it. WP does not put jingle in my pocket; does not pay my bills; and I do not use it to reaffirm my self-esteem. You disregard of yourself that which you expect of others. Wise up and "cease and desist". What you amend in the articles is always "the best" and that which you revert is always "the worst". You will insist (as they say, "Until the cows come home.) that something is consensus merely because it has existed with out question in an article and is later shown to be untrue for such a duration that when a source is found by others to prove differently it makes you appear the fool when attempting to strive for a quality article that includes well-mannered personal interactions. An apology is not going to erase your history so let it be.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I've changed the section title to critical analysis even though many sources indicate most of them are perennial themes but I can understand Ring's view that some of them may be considered more motifs or devices. So a neutral title avoids any possible confusion, it addresses them purely as issues. My current version in User:Dr. Blofeld/Annie Hall also places the love section at the top as primary importance, addressing Ring's concerns that it is the central theme. My feeling is that we could probably introduce a bit more material on scholarly discussion of love and relationship and make it the longest sub section out of the lot and perhaps split Jewish identify later. 
What do you dispute about what is currently in my sandbox version Ring? I've replaced that shoddy source as you suggested. All of the content discussed in it is well sourced and the issues in them whatever you want to call them are all widely discussed in multiple reliable sources. I make no claim about any of them formally being a theme or whatever, just addressed as issues. I'm sure some of them would be disputed on whether they're really themes, motifs or devices or whatever and my version makes no claim towards that, just documents what has been covered in reliable sourced on issues related to the film. We can say love is a central theme if you want to and can source that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kol mah Sh'Talmid vatik atid l'horot lifnei rabbo, kevar n'emar L'Moshe B'Sinai (Whatever a seasoned scholar is destined to innovate before his master was already revealed to Moses at Sinai, 
Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 2.4). "The current version is the consensus version." is like saying that an apple is an apple. But the one in the fruit bowl on the dining room table is from the backyard tree and the one on display on the living room credenza is of wax. The destination is the goal but the journey is just as important. No need to criticize, have a concern, yes, but to criticize, well, no need to turn the milk sour so soon.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue 2:Themes/critical analysis

message: Are there any articles about Annie Hall's presentations on broadcast television? I've seen it on ABC in the late 70's, Kansas City's KSHB TV41 (when it was a Fox affiliate) in the late 80's, and it's recently (early 2015) been shown a few times on the digital subchannel This TV. Each time it appears to have been shown unedited; every showing included some on-air advisory . This TV's advisory explicitly stated that the movie had not been edited for content.
I've always assumed that some contractual obligation existed that the movie be shown unedited, but haven't seen any detailed articles on the subject. And it appears that many of Allen's films (for United Artists, at least) have been shown unedited on basic cable channels. It would be relevant to the Annie Hall article (and the Wikipedia articles on Allen and his other films) if we could include that information. Just1thing (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Broadcast television airings

message: My recollection is Alvie is making jokes about people walking by, and just before the cut he says something like "There goes the winner of the Truman Capote look-alike contest", and the person walking by at  that moment is Truman Capote. Both the caption to the picture and to a lesser extent the text, suggest that in the movie this is an actual winner of a look-alike contest. That is just incredibly literal, and I don't think it's right. Alvie is just quipping about people walking by. Obviously, in real life Woody Allen knows that is Truman Capote, and therefore that's part of the joke. It would be funny if Alvie the character didn't know, but he might. But either way, there is no actual look-alike contest in the film. Maybe I'm the one reading too literally and this is just a quick way to refer to where his cameo is, but I thought it was dumb when I read it... particularly the caption on the picture. Gripdamage (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truman Capote