Talk:Armond White

Broken link to his homepage

His homepage is no longer up. 14:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Broken link to his RT page

So the link to his Rotten Tomatoes page is no longer valid, someone with better editing skills needs to remove the link or update it if he still has a page on RT. 76.177.6.115 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Contrarian

Certainly mention should be made of White's tendency to review against critical consensus. Even Roger Ebert was compelled to label him "a troll" because of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.88.25 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Any mention of anything negative against Mr. White is usually deleted. I have tried multiple times to address the numerous criticisms against Mr. White in order to bring greater neutrality to this article, only to have it subsequently removed shortly after for no apparent reason Mr79 (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

When delivering his negative review of the otherwise well received film, Toy Story 3, Mr. White seems to only have a loose grasp of what happened in the movie. Many of his criticisms seem to stem from lack of understanding as opposed to thought out complaints. "The toys wage battle with the daycare center’s cynical veteran cast-offs: Hamm the Piggy Bank pig, Lotsa[sic] Hugs and Big Baby." Hamm has been one of the main protagonists since the original film, but was very briefly used by Andy as a bad guy while playing. He later states that the plot was the same a Transformers 2, when the two films bare virtually no similar plot elements aside from the fact that Transformers was based on a toy line. He also makes a comparison to Small Soldiers, where again, the only similarity in plot is the fact that toys are involved. White accuses the film of merely celebrating consumerism. Although he gives no reason for believing this, it can be assumed it is because some of the characters are actual toys in reality. However, out of the myriad of characters featured, only a scant handful existed as actual toys outside of the franchise, including: Mr. Potato Head, Slinky dog, Ken and Barbie, Barrel of Monkeys, and the Army Men -the latter two appearing for mere seconds on screen. There was no mention made of purchasing such toys, in fact there was a predominate theme of recycling throughout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.211.58 (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The line about him being a contrarian - or being described as one - should be deleted because he's really not. 174.91.6.23 (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually he's contrarian as hell and everybody knows it. It's his gimmick. But the article should still have a source to cite this fact. 174.52.115.192 (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

According to a number of sources on the Internet, White is gay. This Wikipedia article mentioned him being a contributor to Out but it never actually says whether or not Armond White is homosexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.115.29 (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Citations? Proof?

Any proof that White it influential? That a review of his has been "widely-read"? That he has been "the most forceful and intellectually stimulating defender of films by Steven Spielberg", etc.? This reads as if it was written by White's press agent. If multiple, independent sources don't appear in the next few days I'm going to begin removing all of this. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How are these prove-able claims? White's paper has a quarter of a million circulation, and he is frequently put on the paper's cover so that he is widely-read seems beyond dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.131.152 (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

New York Press had a circulation barely over 100,000 in 2006, so it is probably lower now. It is also a free weekly so it's hard to guage how well read he is. Rottentomatoes does not even list him as a "top critic." I would say that this whole "bio" sounds as if it was written by Mr. White himself, in order to extoll his own importance. If you read through it, the ENTIRE thing is about how wonderful and influential he is. Even the "negative" things are mentioned in passing and used to demonstrate his influence and power. I think that just about the whole thing should be scrapped. Really, I would not be surprised in the slightest to learn that this was written by Mr. White. Take for exampled the "ten number ones" or whatever the hell it is at the end. I haven't a clue what that even means, but it is strong evidence of a self important individual writing things up for himself without thinking it necessary to give background information because it is self evident to himself. That or his grandiose vision of himself leads him to believe that everyone will know what it is already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.174 (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The article says that he is an award-winning film critic. He did not win any award for being a film critic, he won an award for being a music critic. If I won an award in a piano playing competition, then went on to play violin I couldn't tout myself as an award-winning violinist, could I? . Nino137.111.47.29 (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As one of a series of three Cineaste Symposia on film cricitism, "Film Criticism in the Age in the Internet" was neither devoted to nor inspired by White’s New York Press essay. That essay’s assertions were quoted in the Symposium’s introduction as a means of presenting one extreme attitude toward Internet film criticism to be debated later by the participating critics. Picque (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This article should be deleted.--72.179.63.166 (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, this article reeks of self-importance and was obviously written by someone close to mr. White. The sources are a joke. Outright deletion may be too harsh - it should be pared down to a simple bio blurb more appropriate to his significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.160.211 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is an absolute joke, and should be deleted immediately. "White's defense of serious film art remains steadfast. New York magazine described him as "Film culture's last angry man."[7]" this is simply hilarious, especially since the next section lists his favorite movies as being Femme Fatale, War of the Worlds, and A.I., which are all laughable attempts at creating a meaningful or worthwhile movie. Once again, article should be deleted ASAP, this man is of no relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.137.2 (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is definitely written from a biased point of view and contains many unsourced and dubious statements. It appears to be an attempt to build up Mr. White's reputation, with the whole article portraying him as a brilliant renegade of the film world. While this may or may not be an accurate reflection of him (withholding my own opinion) its writing style clearly has no place in an encyclopedia. Fearfulsymmetry (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added aspects of criticism towards him that were not mentioned before. All this information can be found from the first citation - an article by New York Magazine surrounding the controversy of his consistent criticism towards highly applauded films. I will also begin to research some of the other information here as much of it is not cited.mr79 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that White is considered "small-minded and racist by his peers" definitely needs to be cited or removed if this biography is to remain neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.23.247 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Newport/RI Film Festival?

I removed "Newport (Rhode Island) Film Festival" from the intro graf since there is both the Newport International Film Festival and the Rhode Island International Film Festival. On which one was White a jury member? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hl (talk • contribs) 11:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Puff job

ADDED AFTER LINK WAS REMOVED: I posted a link to a reasonable, well-considered, well-supported article on Armond White. It has now been taken down, with no explanation. That, I think, helps to prove my contention: This entry is just a puff job for a man who seems to be little more than an egotistical troll. It's the kind of thing that ruins Wikipedia's reputation. RossweisseSTL (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, it's one thing to protect an entry's information on a living person in an age of Internet trolls. It's quite another to use that authority to protect said individual from any substantive criticism.

Without worrying in the least about Mr. White's effect on the Tomatometer, valid concerns have been expressed about his accuracy, logic, composition (incomprehensibly run-on sentences are not generally considered acceptable in professional writing), and other basic aspects of the critic's job. A true contrarian has to have a logical basis for her or his opinions; Mr. White consistently seems to be lashing out in an illogical, negativism-for-its-own-sake mode - and that does not advance either reader understanding or the art form.

This entry does not remotely reflect a balanced view of Armond White's work; it's just a puff job.

- RossweisseSTL —Preceding unsigned comment added by RossweisseSTL (talk • contribs) 14:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• The link (and it was a great source!) was not removed, but rather incorporated in the Article, as every other source. I should also add that his contrarian attitudes are mentioned as well as negative criticism of his work (almost the entire "Evaluation" section). --Harac (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Serious vandalism

I've rangeblocked a serial IP hopper. If vandalism persists, let me know and I will block further IPs and semi-protect the article. Fences&Windows 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

I changed the assessment to "Start". This article has only three footnotes, and only one covers the bulk of the text. It is mostly a listing of the subject's work. I'd say it is a Start-class article at present. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer

These two sections that I have started are obviously "under construction". Any editing is welcome. --Harac (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll stick {{underconstruction}} on there for you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced info moved from BLP page to talk page

Work

White is the author of The Resistance: Ten Years of Pop Culture That Shook the World (Overlook Press), Rebel for the Hell of It: The Life of Tupac Shakur (Quartet Books), and Keep Moving: The Michael Jackson Chronicles (Resistance Works, WDC).

DVD liner notes penned by White include: Chameleon Street (Image), Jean-Marie Straub's The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach (New Yorker), Mohsen Makhmalbaf's The Silence (New Yorker), Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress (Criterion), Trouble in Paradise (Criterion), George Washington (Criterion), Rohmer's Love in the Afternoon (Criterion), Charles Burnett's Killer of Sheep (Milestone), David Lean's Hobson's Choice (Criterion), and Truffaut's The Last Metro (Criterion). White's DVD commentary can be heard on the Warner Bros. releases Uptown Saturday Night, Let's Do It Again, A Piece of the Action and Superfly. White's insights are also featured on the "Chameleon Street" commentary track.

White has also authored Birth of a Nation'hood (Pantheon), edited by Toni Morrison. His essay "Eye, the Jury", examines popular perception of the legendary O.J. Simpson trial.

In First of the Year (Transaction), an anthology of articles originally published in the alternative quarterly First of the Month, several White pieces are reprinted, including his essays on The Matrix, Pearl Harbor, War of the Worlds, Morrissey's You Are the Quarry and Oliver Stone's World Trade Center.

Phillip Lopate's survey: American Movie Critics: An Anthology From the Silents Until Now (The Library of America) includes White among the outstanding practitioners in the field, reprinting two of White's City Sun reviews of Spike Lee films: "Rebirth of a Nation" (on Do the Right Thing) and "Malcolm X'd Again" (on Malcolm X).

New York Calling (Reaktion Books), edited by Marshall Berman and Brian Berger, contains White's essay "Speaking Truth to Power", where he discusses 1990s New York City life and his tenure at The City Sun newspaper through a critique of the Spike Lee film Clockers. White's writing has also been anthologized in National Society of Film Critics collections, The A List, The X List, They Went Thataway, Foreign Affairs, Love and Hisses.

Since 1993, White has coordinated an annual program of music videos for New York's Film Society of Lincoln Center. His programs and interview-guests have included Hype Williams, Mark Romanek, Marcus Nispel and Ben Stokes.

---

Unsourced info moved from BLP page to talk page. Please do not add back to this WP:BLP page, unless properly cited to independent reliable secondary sources. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Balance here is questionable

I realize that this page, like all pages, needs to remain unbiased, but attempts to downplay the criticism towards White to me seems to have clearly made it biased in his favor. White is one of the most questioned reviewers active at the moment, yet the "evalutions" section leads with excessive notes of praise first and foremost, with at least one of which going off of a source that was calling him into question more than anything (#60). Also, the segment on Ebert's criticism of White concludes by stating that Ebert regretted his assertion after being denounced by White for criticizing a colleague. In the source cited for this statement, consisting mostly of an email sent to Ebert by a friend, White is a footnote, refrenced in a derogatory manner and unfavorably compared to another critic by the aforementioned friend. In fact, though I admit it could be an oversight of mine, I did not notice any mention of White at all from Ebert. But more importantly, the section above clearly states that White has done the exact same thing (many times over and to Ebert in particular) to a much more aggressive extent. I'd call this hypocritical, and I'm hard pressed to imagine how it could be termed otherwise, yet unlike Ebert's assertion, these claims are completely unquestioned in the article, presented as though they are nothing more than thought-out contentions from White.

Furthermore, the article doesn't really get into why White is considered a contrarian, presenting it mainly as a subjective opinion. I didn't see if the article still states that White agrees with the majority 52% of the time, but the last time I checked, the specific evaluation of this was removed. Purely as a statistic, this is indeed unusually contrarian. A majority is a majority, of course, because more people are in it, meaning that, purely by chance, one is likely to be in it more often than not. 52% of the time is the lowest that I've seen to date, and after looking through many scores in as wide a range as possible, I have my doubts that there's a lower one.130.49.146.57 (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great. Can you source all that and add it back in? ThtrWrtr (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

When I started research on this section I realized that White is more respected in critic's circles then I initially expected (his contrarianism is viewed as an originality of sorts). Of course he is despised by the public, and several critics who admit that openly (all have been referenced, as far as I know). I believe the article balances these two tendencies well, but of course there is room for improvement. Btw, article still states, and always has, the 52% statistic, although I tweak it from time to time, as it changes to a larger degree (usually few more percentages) on rottentomatoes. I believe we have surveyed all the relevant sources on his contrarian views. There may be room, and I myself am in this category, for belief that his contrarian views are not consistent with his attitudes to film as an art form, but any assertion in that regard, without a proper source, including deduction, would be an original opinion/research which has to be avoided on Wikipedia--Accursius (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above sources, I'm assuming that I wasn't clear enough in my arguement. I am not claiming that information on White has been omitted or that the article needs to direct more personal anger or ad hominems towards him. What I question is the interpretation/presentation of some of the sources already cited and the equality in the standards with which each subject is evaluated. I thought I was precise in my explaination, but if exactly what I meant isn't clear, please tell me.130.49.131.167 (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's fair to say that some of the above complaints no longer apply, but the article still states that Ebert admitted to showing "very poor judgement" in criticizing White. From what I can tell, this is entirely made up. In the article cited as proof, White is a footnote. He is unfavorably compared to critic Dan Schneider by a friend of Ebert's and, from what I could tell, never mentioned by Ebert at all. Unless someone sees something I don't, this claim needs to be removed.74.111.127.30 (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote in question is Ebert's own statement in the comments thread, responding to a commenter who mentions his earlier post about White. It reads: "it showed very poor judgment for me to write that entry, and I will never write another like it." Go to the web page, search on that text and you'll find it. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, but then why are we left to assume that this had anything to do with White's response to Ebert? Shouldn't this information be given directly after the summary of Ebert's article?74.111.127.30 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

80% direct quotes

1) What is the problem with this (please provide the link with the rule), and how can it be amended? 2) How did the person putting up this sign get to the estimate of 80%?! If this is not addressed soon I will remove the sign. --Accursius (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Evaluations by Others

So it's been decided that praise of him is the biggest and foremost note? Fine, but how about applying some moderation to the first three sentences, which quickly descend into variations of "his criticism has been called great and smart" repeated about 10 to 15 times? It comes across as the writer just trying too hard to build him up.130.49.145.142 (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2014

Not sure why this page is edit-locked, but I'd like to add Armond White's National Review archive (http://www.nationalreview.com/author/1152026) This is a legitimate and useful link to his most prominent current forum and should be available to readers who want to evaluate his work without bias. Big Tim Cavanaugh (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done and Thank you -BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"very poor judgment" not in cited source

The last line of the article contains a quote not in the linked page, anyone know where that really came from? 73.53.48.123 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Roger Ebert

Hold on, White criticizes the concept of websites like Rotten Tomatoes, but then he's upset about being taken off the site? And he criticizes Roger Ebert for "criticizing colleagues," but then he turns around and says that Ebert's work is not only bad but ruined film criticism? (Not to mention he criticizes several more colleagues the same way?) Does he or anyone else offer an explanation for this? They're contradictions that stand out like a sore thumb. If that really is all there is to it, would somebody at least change the page to at least acknowledge they're contradictions, as per standard?74.111.125.33 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The explanation is that he is a troll. 100.40.6.156 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bloat

After a notification by User:NinjaRobotPirate on the BLP noticeboard, I have made a somewhat not so small cut in this article, removing that entire bloated chunk of content about the subject's opinions and the opinions of others about his opinions. We are well outside of encyclopedic content here, rehashing feuds and discussions had on blogs and in the press. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. That looks much better. I was tempted to remove the "views" stuff, but I wanted to get a second opinion before I basically stubbed the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is the mentioning of any colleagues' opinions on White unencyclopedic? I can understand certain posts about him being viewed as irrelevant to an encyclopedia and therefore removed – but I am not convinced that everything in this reverted edit, for example, was unhelpful. AndrewOne (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2016

Add reference for White's 'idiosyncratic' reviews (in the first sentence). Daniel McNeil, “The last honest film critic in America: Armond White and the children of James Baldwin,” Film criticism in the digital age, eds. Mattias Frey and Cecilia Sayad (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2015), pp. 61-78.

Add source Daniel McNeil, “The last honest film critic in America: Armond White and the children of James Baldwin,” Film criticism in the digital age, eds. Mattias Frey and Cecilia Sayad (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2015), pp. 61-78. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/danielmcneil/13/

Newdeal444 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for finding this source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Armond White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315144632/http://www.nyfcc.com/members.php?member=34 to http://www.nyfcc.com/members.php?member=34
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113145527/http://www.nyfcc.com/message-from-the-2010-chairman/ to http://www.nyfcc.com/message-from-the-2010-chairman/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100913050834/http://www.nypress.com/flex-10-armond-white.html to http://www.nypress.com/flex-10-armond-white.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019

Remove "{{POV|date=December 2017}}" per WP:DRIVEBY because the tag was applied without explanation. 209.6.209.51 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the tag after reading the whole article. Statements about this person appear to be neutral and well sourced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography Incomplete

Missing:

The Press Gang: Writings on Cinema from New York Press, 1991-2011 (w/ Godfrey Cheshire and Matt Zoller Seitz, edited by Jim Colvill), 2020 (ISBN: 9781609809775)

Make Spielberg Great Again: The Steven Spielberg Chronicles, 2020 (ISBN: 9780984215911) Bumscorch (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDIOM

Please rephrase to avoid the unnecessary use of the cliched idiom "on the other hand". If it is not paired with the opening clause "on the first hand" then it is better to not use it at all. -- 109.77.205.32 (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)