Talk:Here Comes the Groom (1951 film)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
American Vision: The Films of Frank Capra[edit]
Please let me add the book to a bibliography/further reading list, I have no relation whatsoever to the author of the book, so, no, it is not self-promotional and, regardless, those bibliographies always contain studies that are not the newest as well as ones that are not directly cited in the article (see e.g. the bibliographies at Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, It’s a Wonderful Life, It Happened One Night, and Meet John Doe, all containing studies much older than this one as well as ones not directly cited), so, why not include this one, too, probably the most important study on this issue, by the way.--77.125.203.207 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why? The book is nearly 40 years old. What does it contribute? By what standard is it a "major scholarly work?" Rather than selectively adding the book to articles it actually contributes to, you've carpet-bombed a mass of articles with no discernible reason for doing so. And all this follows massive, highly POV edits to the author's article. I plan to remove the book from all the Capra film articles until/unless you can establish some good reason for it to be there. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why? The book is nearly 40 years old. Dealt with above. To be fair, it is 35 years old. The bibliographies of the four aforementioned entries which I have quoted above (plus e.g. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town) contain books more than fifty years old (plus ones about the same age as this one, also true, by the way, for e.g. Lady for a Day). I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of removing those (or, you would have already done so), so, why pick on this one? What does it contribute? By what standard is it a “major scholarly work?” University of California Press’s Film Quarterly: (A)n extraordinary achievement and undertaking (...) Carney’s (book is a) remarkable achievement; University of Georgia’s The Georgia Review: An ambitious and eloquent book (...) (R)eads extraordinarily well. Carney speaks with freshness (and) clarity (...) He produces thoughtful and sometimes exuberent analyses (...) American Vision is absorbing, a book that should advance the reputations of both Frank Capra and Raymond Carney; Jeffrey Richards in the British Association for American Studies’s and Cambridge University Press’s peer-reviewed Journal of American Studies: Carney constantly makes revealing and instructive (points) (...) He advances his thesis further in a closely argued and densely detailed discussion (...) All this is immediately valuable and Carney assembles a persuasive case; Los Angeles Times: (B)rilliant (...) Carney’s readings of the films are always sophisticated, often fascinating, and quite persuasive overall. And all of this, just from searching JSTOR and Google for a couple of minutes (I am sure that I can find even more superlatives attesting to its importance and value) and I have quoted just a selection of superlatives and discussions of its contributions (of course, I do not believe that I should reprint the whole reviews here). I should like to add that being published by Cambridge University Press, maybe the most important academic publisher in the world, is in and of itself eo ipso evidence of it being a major scholarly work. Rather than selectively adding the book to articles it actually contributes to, you’ve carpet-bombed a mass of articles with no discernible reason for doing so. Dealt with above. The bibliographies of the four aforementioned entries which I have quoted above (plus the ones mentioned in this comment) contain books not cited in the text. I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of removing those (or, you would have already done so), so, why pick on this one? And all this follows massive, highly POV edits to the author’s article. All I did was providing a bibliography of his major scholarly publications (plus removing a dead link and performing a very minor stylistic tinkering), how is this a massive, highly POV edit and, anyway, how is this relevant? I plan to remove the book from all the Capra film articles until/unless you can establish some good reason for it to be there. By your own reasoning outlined above (age, books being cited in bibliographies without being quoted in the articles i.e. with no discernible reason to be included, etc.), you should have already removed many other books from the relevant bibliographies, yet you neither did nor (I believe, or else, you would have already done so) have any plan whatsoever to do so, so, why pick on this specific book? Anyway, I hope that more people will join this discussion (preferably if they have any understanding of academic film criticism), rather than it being one just between you and me.--77.125.203.207 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are you finished editing this? I see nothing that convinces me the book adds anything to the article, and the "there are other books" argument is wholly unconvincing ("They got to so why can't I?" is a variant of what-ifisms so popular today); each source is evaluated on its own merits at the time it is added. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of film criticism. Also, please leave the abbreviated thread heading; if you want the full citation presented, it should go in your response. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is obviously a waste of time. You are clearly extremely and incorrigibly biased against the book and against this book alone (and/or, its author, and/or, people such as myself, inspired by his writings) for some reason or another unbeknownst to me (though I can speculate) and nothing that I may say or do (the excuses and ruses that you keep repeating about the book’s age, the fact that it is cited in the bibliographies without being quoted in the article, etc., are clearly just that, excuses and ruses, or else, if you truly believed that all sources more than a couple of years old and all sources not directly cited in the entries lack merit in an encyclopedia that is not a collection of criticism, you would have already removed the plethora of other books cited in the relevant bibliographies that are more than double the age of that book and that are also not directly cited in the entries themselves, it is beyond conspicuous that this is not the real reason for your oppositon to the inclusion of this academic monograph and you have not explained the merits of adding a great many non-Carney sources that are older and not directly cited in the text or what exactly they contribute, by your own ostensible criteria, to the entries such as the one about Lost Horizon), including citing four reviews demonstraing beyond any reasonable doubt, per your ostensible request, that it is indeed a major scholarly study of this issue and a major contribution to the field (as expected, you have completely ignored this part of my reply, by the way, your continuing removal of the fact that this book was published by Cambridge University Press, perhaps the most important academic publisher in the world, is more than pertinent, as is your insistence that merely adding a bibliography of Carney’s major scholarly publications, all published by leading academic presses, to his entry is a a massive, highly POV edit, as is your continuing removal of the link to the Ray Carney entry, wherein readers can see for themselves this fact), will sway you to comport yourself otherwise. In my experience from the past, Wikipedia, amongst many others, is extremely hostile to Carney’s ideas (and extremely threatened by them) and I can only speculate that this is the reason why it is so hell-bent on obscuring his contributions (by the way, probably the most important contributions to this issue). Your exceedingly hostile approach to me, since your very first comment, underscores and underpins this. Maybe someone else, as I have insinuated during my previous reply, will come and say something different, though I doubt it (both that someone else will come and that they will have something different to add). Majority-rule is a scourge. For now, I am done and I see no reason to continue this discussion. Please do not reply to this comment.--77.126.68.137 (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Walls of text are difficult to read and elicit few responses. Two editors reverted your edit. This is the normal part of the process around here. Not everyone will see the merits of an edit as you do. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is obviously a waste of time. You are clearly extremely and incorrigibly biased against the book and against this book alone (and/or, its author, and/or, people such as myself, inspired by his writings) for some reason or another unbeknownst to me (though I can speculate) and nothing that I may say or do (the excuses and ruses that you keep repeating about the book’s age, the fact that it is cited in the bibliographies without being quoted in the article, etc., are clearly just that, excuses and ruses, or else, if you truly believed that all sources more than a couple of years old and all sources not directly cited in the entries lack merit in an encyclopedia that is not a collection of criticism, you would have already removed the plethora of other books cited in the relevant bibliographies that are more than double the age of that book and that are also not directly cited in the entries themselves, it is beyond conspicuous that this is not the real reason for your oppositon to the inclusion of this academic monograph and you have not explained the merits of adding a great many non-Carney sources that are older and not directly cited in the text or what exactly they contribute, by your own ostensible criteria, to the entries such as the one about Lost Horizon), including citing four reviews demonstraing beyond any reasonable doubt, per your ostensible request, that it is indeed a major scholarly study of this issue and a major contribution to the field (as expected, you have completely ignored this part of my reply, by the way, your continuing removal of the fact that this book was published by Cambridge University Press, perhaps the most important academic publisher in the world, is more than pertinent, as is your insistence that merely adding a bibliography of Carney’s major scholarly publications, all published by leading academic presses, to his entry is a a massive, highly POV edit, as is your continuing removal of the link to the Ray Carney entry, wherein readers can see for themselves this fact), will sway you to comport yourself otherwise. In my experience from the past, Wikipedia, amongst many others, is extremely hostile to Carney’s ideas (and extremely threatened by them) and I can only speculate that this is the reason why it is so hell-bent on obscuring his contributions (by the way, probably the most important contributions to this issue). Your exceedingly hostile approach to me, since your very first comment, underscores and underpins this. Maybe someone else, as I have insinuated during my previous reply, will come and say something different, though I doubt it (both that someone else will come and that they will have something different to add). Majority-rule is a scourge. For now, I am done and I see no reason to continue this discussion. Please do not reply to this comment.--77.126.68.137 (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are you finished editing this? I see nothing that convinces me the book adds anything to the article, and the "there are other books" argument is wholly unconvincing ("They got to so why can't I?" is a variant of what-ifisms so popular today); each source is evaluated on its own merits at the time it is added. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of film criticism. Also, please leave the abbreviated thread heading; if you want the full citation presented, it should go in your response. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why? The book is nearly 40 years old. Dealt with above. To be fair, it is 35 years old. The bibliographies of the four aforementioned entries which I have quoted above (plus e.g. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town) contain books more than fifty years old (plus ones about the same age as this one, also true, by the way, for e.g. Lady for a Day). I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of removing those (or, you would have already done so), so, why pick on this one? What does it contribute? By what standard is it a “major scholarly work?” University of California Press’s Film Quarterly: (A)n extraordinary achievement and undertaking (...) Carney’s (book is a) remarkable achievement; University of Georgia’s The Georgia Review: An ambitious and eloquent book (...) (R)eads extraordinarily well. Carney speaks with freshness (and) clarity (...) He produces thoughtful and sometimes exuberent analyses (...) American Vision is absorbing, a book that should advance the reputations of both Frank Capra and Raymond Carney; Jeffrey Richards in the British Association for American Studies’s and Cambridge University Press’s peer-reviewed Journal of American Studies: Carney constantly makes revealing and instructive (points) (...) He advances his thesis further in a closely argued and densely detailed discussion (...) All this is immediately valuable and Carney assembles a persuasive case; Los Angeles Times: (B)rilliant (...) Carney’s readings of the films are always sophisticated, often fascinating, and quite persuasive overall. And all of this, just from searching JSTOR and Google for a couple of minutes (I am sure that I can find even more superlatives attesting to its importance and value) and I have quoted just a selection of superlatives and discussions of its contributions (of course, I do not believe that I should reprint the whole reviews here). I should like to add that being published by Cambridge University Press, maybe the most important academic publisher in the world, is in and of itself eo ipso evidence of it being a major scholarly work. Rather than selectively adding the book to articles it actually contributes to, you’ve carpet-bombed a mass of articles with no discernible reason for doing so. Dealt with above. The bibliographies of the four aforementioned entries which I have quoted above (plus the ones mentioned in this comment) contain books not cited in the text. I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of removing those (or, you would have already done so), so, why pick on this one? And all this follows massive, highly POV edits to the author’s article. All I did was providing a bibliography of his major scholarly publications (plus removing a dead link and performing a very minor stylistic tinkering), how is this a massive, highly POV edit and, anyway, how is this relevant? I plan to remove the book from all the Capra film articles until/unless you can establish some good reason for it to be there. By your own reasoning outlined above (age, books being cited in bibliographies without being quoted in the articles i.e. with no discernible reason to be included, etc.), you should have already removed many other books from the relevant bibliographies, yet you neither did nor (I believe, or else, you would have already done so) have any plan whatsoever to do so, so, why pick on this specific book? Anyway, I hope that more people will join this discussion (preferably if they have any understanding of academic film criticism), rather than it being one just between you and me.--77.125.203.207 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)