21:4521:45, 26 August 2013diffhist+2,430
Wes Anderson
Yes, the wotld's foremost academic film critic's writings aren't reliable. According to Wikipedia and its new boss Spielberg, however, random blogs are!
21:4221:42, 26 August 2013diffhist+644
Woody Allen
Here, I've done what you've asked me to do. However, I'm sure your new boss, Steven Spielberg, will not approve...
21:3821:38, 26 August 2013diffhist+2,430
Wes Anderson
Now what's wrong? I didn't break any silly Wikipedia policy and followed the suggestions of another user, you just don't allow any criticism of the Hollywood machine into your little hagiography
21:3621:36, 26 August 2013diffhist−436
User talk:109.186.234.86
I care about schlarly/academic consensu, not about Wikipedia's silly policy. An film which clearly isn't an art film can't magically become one if some hack blogger/journalist wrote on his blog it is while that film doesn't meet any criteria for being one
21:3221:32, 26 August 2013diffhist−220
User talk:109.186.234.86
Because in the past (i.e., on that seventh-rate sunday morning cartoon's discussion page) fanboy editors refused to listen to what leading scholars had to say, instead clinging to Wikipedia's silly anti-scholarly so-called rules which ignore academia
21:2921:29, 26 August 2013diffhist+258
Saving Private Ryan
I admit I haven't listened to the news today. Seriously, was Wikipedia purchased today by Steven Spielberg, hence prohibiting any criticism whatsoever (even in the form of a minor link) of him? Is Wikipedia now an official Spielberg hagiography?
21:2721:27, 26 August 2013diffhist−2,787
User talk:109.186.234.86
What's innapropriate about scholarly articles by the world's foremost academic film critic? Again, Wikipedia is not some Hollywood hagiography and critiques of it should not be disallowed!
21:2521:25, 26 August 2013diffhist+122
Paul Thomas Anderson
I admit I haven't listened to the news today. Seriously, was Wikipedia purchased today by PTA, hence prohibiting any criticism whatsoever (even in the form of a minor link) of him? Is Wikipedia now an official PTA hagiography?
21:2321:23, 26 August 2013diffhist+120
Sam Mendes
I admit I haven't listened to the news today. Seriously, was Wikipedia purchased today by Sam Mendes, hence prohibiting any criticism whatsoever (even in the form of a minor link) of him? Is Wikipedia now an official Mendes hagiography?
21:2121:21, 26 August 2013diffhist−1,760
User talk:109.186.234.86
I admit I haven't listened to the news today. Can you please direct me to the recent report about Wikipedia being purchased by Steven Spielberg, hence prohibiting any critical comments whatsoever (even in the form of a minor link) of Hollywood?
21:1921:19, 26 August 2013diffhist+120
Sam Mendes
Was Wikipedia recently purchased by some Hollywood tycoon? If not, why can't it accept a link to some critical comments about some Hollywood director written by a leading academic scholar?
21:1221:12, 26 August 2013diffhist−2,507
User talk:109.186.234.86
That editor just mentioned the Variety article rather than embedding it in the text. Also, why is Wikipedia so hostile to even mentioning Carney's name in articles? I don't think Wikipedia's stated goail is to be some giant commercial for Hollywood flicks
21:0221:02, 26 August 2013diffhist+111
Woody Allen
–Excerpted from: "Modernism for the Millions: The Films of Woody Allen," The Alaska Quarterly Review, Vol. 8, No. 1 and 2 (Fall and Winter 1989), pp. 139-169. Not some promotional link but a scholarly reference. Why are you so hostile to Carney?
21:0021:00, 26 August 2013diffhist+120
Sam Mendes
It gives an important counter view to all the hagiography usually found in Wikipedia articles dealing with Hollywood directors. Do you have anything against Carney or his ideas?Tag: repeated addition of external links by non-autoconfirmed user
20:5820:58, 26 August 2013diffhist+258
Saving Private Ryan
He means, in that comment, that this flick does not have any artistic merit. It gives an important counter-view to all the hagiography usually found in Wikipedia articles dealing with Hollywood blockbuster flicks
20:5520:55, 26 August 2013diffhist+123
Wes Anderson
Undid revision 570311024 by
Binksternet (
talk) It gives an important counter-opinion to all the hagiography usually found in Wikipedia articles dealing with Hollywood directors
20:5120:51, 26 August 2013diffhist+111
Woody Allen
Undid revision 570310142 by
Binksternet (
talk) This is not some "promotional link" but a reprint of one of Carney's scholarly papers (originally published in an academic journal)
21:4521:45, 26 August 2013diffhist+2,430
Wes Anderson
Yes, the wotld's foremost academic film critic's writings aren't reliable. According to Wikipedia and its new boss Spielberg, however, random blogs are!
21:4221:42, 26 August 2013diffhist+644
Woody Allen
Here, I've done what you've asked me to do. However, I'm sure your new boss, Steven Spielberg, will not approve...
21:3821:38, 26 August 2013diffhist+2,430
Wes Anderson
Now what's wrong? I didn't break any silly Wikipedia policy and followed the suggestions of another user, you just don't allow any criticism of the Hollywood machine into your little hagiography
21:3621:36, 26 August 2013diffhist−436
User talk:109.186.234.86
I care about schlarly/academic consensu, not about Wikipedia's silly policy. An film which clearly isn't an art film can't magically become one if some hack blogger/journalist wrote on his blog it is while that film doesn't meet any criteria for being one
21:3221:32, 26 August 2013diffhist−220
User talk:109.186.234.86
Because in the past (i.e., on that seventh-rate sunday morning cartoon's discussion page) fanboy editors refused to listen to what leading scholars had to say, instead clinging to Wikipedia's silly anti-scholarly so-called rules which ignore academia
21:2921:29, 26 August 2013diffhist+258
Saving Private Ryan
I admit I haven't listened to the news today. Seriously, was Wikipedia purchased today by Steven Spielberg, hence prohibiting any criticism whatsoever (even in the form of a minor link) of him? Is Wikipedia now an official Spielberg hagiography?
21:2721:27, 26 August 2013diffhist−2,787
User talk:109.186.234.86
What's innapropriate about scholarly articles by the world's foremost academic film critic? Again, Wikipedia is not some Hollywood hagiography and critiques of it should not be disallowed!
21:2521:25, 26 August 2013diffhist+122
Paul Thomas Anderson
I admit I haven't listened to the news today. Seriously, was Wikipedia purchased today by PTA, hence prohibiting any criticism whatsoever (even in the form of a minor link) of him? Is Wikipedia now an official PTA hagiography?
21:2321:23, 26 August 2013diffhist+120
Sam Mendes
I admit I haven't listened to the news today. Seriously, was Wikipedia purchased today by Sam Mendes, hence prohibiting any criticism whatsoever (even in the form of a minor link) of him? Is Wikipedia now an official Mendes hagiography?
21:2121:21, 26 August 2013diffhist−1,760
User talk:109.186.234.86
I admit I haven't listened to the news today. Can you please direct me to the recent report about Wikipedia being purchased by Steven Spielberg, hence prohibiting any critical comments whatsoever (even in the form of a minor link) of Hollywood?
21:1921:19, 26 August 2013diffhist+120
Sam Mendes
Was Wikipedia recently purchased by some Hollywood tycoon? If not, why can't it accept a link to some critical comments about some Hollywood director written by a leading academic scholar?
21:1221:12, 26 August 2013diffhist−2,507
User talk:109.186.234.86
That editor just mentioned the Variety article rather than embedding it in the text. Also, why is Wikipedia so hostile to even mentioning Carney's name in articles? I don't think Wikipedia's stated goail is to be some giant commercial for Hollywood flicks
21:0221:02, 26 August 2013diffhist+111
Woody Allen
–Excerpted from: "Modernism for the Millions: The Films of Woody Allen," The Alaska Quarterly Review, Vol. 8, No. 1 and 2 (Fall and Winter 1989), pp. 139-169. Not some promotional link but a scholarly reference. Why are you so hostile to Carney?
21:0021:00, 26 August 2013diffhist+120
Sam Mendes
It gives an important counter view to all the hagiography usually found in Wikipedia articles dealing with Hollywood directors. Do you have anything against Carney or his ideas?Tag: repeated addition of external links by non-autoconfirmed user
20:5820:58, 26 August 2013diffhist+258
Saving Private Ryan
He means, in that comment, that this flick does not have any artistic merit. It gives an important counter-view to all the hagiography usually found in Wikipedia articles dealing with Hollywood blockbuster flicks
20:5520:55, 26 August 2013diffhist+123
Wes Anderson
Undid revision 570311024 by
Binksternet (
talk) It gives an important counter-opinion to all the hagiography usually found in Wikipedia articles dealing with Hollywood directors
20:5120:51, 26 August 2013diffhist+111
Woody Allen
Undid revision 570310142 by
Binksternet (
talk) This is not some "promotional link" but a reprint of one of Carney's scholarly papers (originally published in an academic journal)