User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 11

Zrdragon investigation

Hi, there's an ongoing investigation on Zrdragon's editing behaviour on ANI. This may be of interest since she had disputes with you which are being reported as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Nguyen1310 (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Cinema of the United Kingdom

Hi, re the above article I thought that it would be useful to open the lines of communication a bit. Although many of your changes have been excellent, there are some which I feel have left the article in worse shape. For example the World War II section now starts abruptly with "By now Humphrey Jennings had begun his distinguished series of documentaries, in some cases working in collaboration with co-directors", rather than with text opening up the paragraph topic.

The start of the British New Wave section now starts "The term British New Wave, or the linked phenomenon 'kitchen sink realism', is used to describe a group of commercial feature films made between 1955 and 1963 which portrayed more accurate social realism than had been seen in British cinema previously". I agree that 'kitchen sink realism' is a separate though overlapping phenomenon, but the remainder of the sentence "used to describe a group of commercial feature films made between 1955 and 1963 which portrayed more accurate social realism than had been seen in British cinema previously". " is a definition of the former, not the latter, so using it as a definition for both is wrong.

Re the lead, I think on balance the lead is now better, but I would rather not see any more fiddling with the text without discussion. One thing which I do think it could use is an additional nuts and bolts paragraph which describes the current major UK based studios and players, and the UK's activities in post production and film technology. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion about the Cinema of the United Kingdom article.

OK, the mention of Humphrey Jennings right at the start of a section might seem odd, but before my edits nothing led into the influence of the documentary film movement on the British fiction film. As we have Night Mail mentioned earlier, we merely need a recap about the movement at this point. I'm not sure, but I think London Can Take It is the only film from the period which deals with the blitz (Fires Were Started came out a few years later), and as an internationally known period of UK history it seems worth mentioning at the beginning to gain readers attention. I also seem to remember a barbed criticism by Michael Powell, who saw his films as a reaction against British documentary realism which if I can find it (and it does not relate to Powell and Pressburger's post war films) will also help the passage work as a whole rather than allowing it to consist of atomised points. I am an admirer of Jennings (and P&P) so I am perhaps not neutral enough here.

I'm working on the new wave section at the moment, and you are right to seen problems with it. The statement "commercial feature films made between 1955 and 1963" is problematic. The film of Look Back in Anger dates from 1959, while the free cinema films before then and Anderson's early documentaries probably would not be thought of as 'commercial' even if some of them must have been given a circuit release (the films sponsored by Ford of Britain perhaps), so 1955 may needs altering. "Social realism" was present before I started working on this section.

The lead remains unsatisfactory as far as the history of the industry is concerned, but the expertise of British craftsman and technicians is already mentioned. The financial crises of some of the most significant people and firms in the industry is particularly marked and these should be in the summary. Korda lost control of Denham to the Prudential (who had financially supported him) as early as 1937, and the later attempts, of which Rank and Goldcrest are only the first which come to mind, did not end happily either. Philip Cross (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

OK I will leave you to work on the WW2 and New Wave sections in peace.

I guess the sort of things I am referring to for the lead are: Pinewood and Elstree as major production centres; leading corporate players like BBC Films, Film 4, The Pinewood Studios Group and Working Title; London as a major centre for post-production work; and Warner Bros. Studios, Leavesden as one of the very few Hollywood production sites outside of the US. I think this could be done in a single four line para.

Yes perhaps the ultimate commercial failure of Rank and Goldcrest could be made clearer. I wonder if we should also include PolyGram as another notable failed attempt to create a UK-based Hollywood style player?Rangoon11 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Carry On (film series)

diff. Hi, the tags you added on the above we're not necersary as the citations already given covered these "facts". Also, I see by your edit summary that you state the text is not covered on IMDb. Please bare in mind that this is irrelevant as as IMDb is not a reliable source. Many thanks. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is that ABC Films is almost certainly a mythical construction. I pointed out in the edit summary that Associated British Pictures Corporation (ABPC) and their subsidiary Associated British Corporation (ABC Television) certainly existed, but 'ABC Films' could not have existed as a different company. (It was the ABPC cinema chain then. ABC-TV had come into conflict with another ITV contractor Associated Television (ATV) who had attempted to use the name 'ABC' a few years earlier when the company was formed). OK, IMDb is imperfect, but Ted Ray would have credits for 'ABC Films' if he was genuinely contracted to them. The unreliability of this site for Wikipedia applies to the comments section, not the credits. You should bear in mind that Robert Ross has a mixed reputation as far as the accuracy of his books on British Comedy are concerned. (Check the various websites which will turn up via Google if you are unaware of this.) So I think the request for further citations on this point would remain perfectly valid if they had not been removed. Philip Cross (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I do know of Ross' reputation, Webber, IMO, is a lot more accurate. The information is only that which is given in the source. This information cannot be altered as it would void the source reliability and its contents. A poetic licence should not be adopted when giving information from the books. I will look about, but as I do not pertain to know a lot about the different companies and you seem to know a lot more about them than I do, can you give a reliable source which gives this information. IMO, Its all too easy to add tags but takes skill in ferreting out the evidence. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Limited evidence on line so far found. 'ABC Films' seems to have been a subsidiary of ABC-TV for their pre-filmed series like The Avengers (made on film from around 1964, IIRCl;). As Anglo-Amalgamated, who then made the Carry On films, appear to have been 50% owned by ABPC (if the WP article on ABPC is accurate) the reason for Ted Ray's contractual problem becomes more mysterious. The section on Carry On Teacher in the article only makes sense if the editor responsible had assumed the Carry Ons were made by Rank at the time. Philip Cross (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Didn't Ray have something to do with Gainsborough Studios at the time and it was them who got shirty with Rogers etc? I remember reading that somewhere. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Chossudovsky

It seems every time I check the Chossudovsky page there are contributors like yourself that do not actually contribute or put any order to the article, but actually take away from it and put it out of order. Why would you put dated western standard opinion articles in somebody's biography? That western standard article is not very relevant as it criticized Chossudovsky for thinking large banks can cause the collapse of smaller economies. It wasn't such a "wild-eyes conspiracy theory" when it actually happened during the global financial crisis a year later. To remove this opinion article from criticism section and put it in biography and remove the context is disingenuous to say the least. I see these edits over and over on Chossudovsky's page. Then you went and put it in "Chronological Order". Can you explain this edit as before a contributor decided to put it in Alphabetical. If you are changing the order, at least put it in an order that makes sense. I made it my job to at least keep people from basically vandalizing his page. If you want to be really predicable, you should make your next edit on HAARP and remove the context of what he is saying. This is another edit I see over and over by other contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifersen (talk • contribs) 00:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I moved most of the reference to the Western Standard article because criticism sections are not advised as they violate NPOV. I had intended to eliminate the section entirely, but did not get round to it yesterday. Another editor attempting alphabetical order is nothing to do with me, but a chronological approach to topics is the more common form. It is not perfect, hence dates need to be used where appropriate for clarity. The intention of articles is not to present individuals as oracles, and the WS article is not restricted to the financial crash. Attempting to make a point is disallowed on WP as it violates neutrality, so I have again removed from the end of the criticism section the mention of the 2007-8 crash. Your use of the word "malicious" about my edits does not assume good faith.

Please see WP:COI, as your edits are virtually restricted to this one individual,. Philip Cross (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Archer

I have reverted your vandalism. Please do not attempt to engage in a revert war. I have added a link from The Telegraph. I have looked at your edit record, and what you are doing is buzzing around on your broomstick, from topic to topic (Wikipedia is apparently your life), making edits on topics you know nothing about. The affair between Archer and Symonds is well WELL known. Why did you not simply look up one of the many URLs to broadsheets (I don't see why you don't like The Daily Mail) and insert such a link rather than simply get rid of the information. If you had very few edits, I would suspect you of either being a friend of Archer or being Archer himself - but from your edits I conclude that you are simply one of these kids that have nothing else to do but make a life out of Wikipedia - largely by reverting other peoples' edits - maybe because you got bullied at school and this is your way of "getting back". What you are doing is not appreciated at Wikipedia. May I suggest that if you are not familiar with a subject, that you do not make any edits on that topic??? You would be doing everybody a service if you stuck to making edits only to subjects on which you are familiar. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I see I have gotten on your nerves. It is in many broadsheets, not to mention books. Again, why don't you stick to editing subjects you know something about. But, seeing that you have build a large chunk of your daily life around Wikipedia - mainly editing things you don't know anything about - my guess is that you want to get into an edit war - figures. You're unbelievable. What you are doing is not appreciated at Wikipedia.Betathetapi545 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If you bothered to do a little research, you would find out that Archer's affair with Symonds was even included in a television show in Canada called "The Mistress": http://www.slice.ca/Shows/ShowsPage.aspx?Title_ID=281725 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It is up to editors to prove the validity of their edits, not to expect another contributor to find more evidence to help get them out of difficulty. See Verifiability - Burden of Prove (first sentence):"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The material you are so keen on including counts as gossip and scandal mongering. See Soapbox, especially item 3. The extra-marital affair with Sarah Symonds is a trivial detail, adultery is not illegal, and this liaison cannot be compared with Archer's involvement with Monica Coghlan which ultimately led to his custodial sentence for perjury. The affair gains only a passing mention in reliable sources, so no great merit in including it. Philip Cross (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)