Talk:Mr. Deeds Goes to Town/Archive 1

Last name, first name

I was a little inconsistent here, referring to everybody except Jean Arthur's character by last name, but it seems to me to be the best solution. Clarityfiend 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You deleted 666!

Ha ha, that's funny! You deleted perhaps one of the most important discoveries ever made in Hollywood cinema! Wikipedia is a joke! Wikipedia has nothing of value here, it has no knowledge contained in its pages at all.

If Wikipedia were a brick and mortar library in any country, it would have been demolished by now. There is nothing here but disinformation (remember that word? You should!).

You're a joke and your administrators are fools. Remember, this site never represents anyone, you speak for no one. You are liars.

And people can still find the link and reference in the history section. You cretins, you never speak for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.146.139 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You are comments a bit uncivil, please have a look at WP:CIVIL.-- Ѕandahl 01:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Would Wikipedia readers be interested in the subject of odd symbols appearing in this movie? Symbols that also appeared in many other successful Hollywood movies? Please remember, the 666 symbol that was used in The Omen wasn't exactly 666, it was depicted in a circular fashion. The 666 here is seen as 999, but obviously the doodle is upside down. Is that interesting to Mr. Deeds fans?--76.248.229.104 (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have pasted your message to my talk here for continuity:

Yes, of course, I see. I have never seen any evidence that MDGT popularized 666, either. Exactly the opposite, actually, as some persons seem to want to ignore its existence in the movie entirely. That in itself is intriguing, isn't it? But there's a query on the movie's discussion page now, so if anyone wants to talk about it there, they can. And then after a certain length of time, as no one objects to it, the 666 reference can be replaced on the movie's page where it was before all this deletion started. Is that correct?--76.248.229.104 (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You admit yourself that you have never seen any evidence that MDGT popularized 666. Please take a look at WP:OR.-- Ѕandahl 04:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see, you're right. Now we have this topic on the Discussion page, perhaps someone will post their findings on whether or not this is the very first appearance of 666 in a Hollywood film. Then we can put it back on the movie page. In the meantime I'll call the studio and ask them.--76.248.229.104 (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable or debatable issues should be brought to a discussion page and that is the proper proscribed practice, however, your contention that the inclusion of an unsupported supposition then be included in the article is incorrect. Without consensus from other editors involved in developing the article, there is no possibility of a theoretical claim being acceptable. Wikipedia relies on validity and uncontested references whereby readers can rely on statements that are not only factually correct but supported by authoritative attribution. FWIW, asking for studio representatives for commentary is hardly reliable evidence. In every Capra biography and review of the film, the question of satanic symbols is never brought up. Bzuk (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

The obvious aspect of this discussion is that there is an acceptance of the "666" symbol being used in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. I categorically reject this claim as not only illogical but also patently false. Anyone looking at the image that is used as the basis of the claim can clearly see that the pencil drawing is made up of doodles drawn as loops and not as numbers or symbols. Even throwing out logic and interpreting the doodles as symbols, the images then would be a "3" (that forms an ear) and a series of "999"s and "333"s (drawn as hair in the stylistic doodled face). Only if you turn the image upside down, do you then see "666" images. The fleeting image (a few frames) of a diabolic symbol seen only in contorted view is hardly likely to be an implanted image of the devil. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

You are amazingly correct again, your logic is infallible. But why can't you use the term "subliminal message?" And how long has it been since you saw The Omen? Don't you remember how the 666 symbol appeared there? But I'll call the studio and ask just what Capra was about with that doodle, we'll put this whole debate to an end. And in the meantime, we can wonder about Frank Capra's testimony against Hollywood communists. Are satanists adversaries of communists? Are they rivals of a sort? Well, that's just another aspect of this mess that needs to be addressed, isn't it?--76.248.229.104 (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Bzuk's refusal to respond to the above post shows his inability to support his illogical statement. He "categorically" denies what his eys prove, that the "doodle" is far more than a doodle, it is an intricately drawn picture with much information contained within. There are no simple loops or doodles as he mentions, there is specific information given to the movie viewer. The "stylistic doodled face" with its "hair" is not part of the information given with the numerical symbols. The drawing's face disappears or assumes another form when the picture is inverted and the 666 symbol becomes apparent to the viewer. And "fleeting images" are all that's needed for subliminals.

Mr. Bzuk falls from this discussion due to his lack of interest, he loses by default. His refusal to respond to valid arguments on the topic of whether or not the 666 symbol should be on the movie's Wiki page has proven that Mr. Bzuk only reason for deleting it is that he did not discover it himself. Mr. Bzuk?--76.244.162.118 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Claim of satanic images

The original image in contention is a doodle, nothing more, nothing less. It is available for anyone to look at and in Wikipedia, there is no room for so-called "original research" nor is there any basis for the above comments which indicate an interpretation that is not supported by verifiable, second hand research. The dismissive nature of the preceding statement does not seem to factor in that there are different time zones in the world and people do not monitor Wikipedia continually. This is the image in question, I will post it here for a brief period and then remove it as it is not allowed outside mainspace:

76.244.162.118 (talk), this is the image: thumb|screenshot The contentious frame you have claimed is a satanic image with "666". FWIW, I didn't think the "666" claim warrants anything other than a removal as it is a nonsensical claim. However, the wholly inappropriate (and still continuing) comments left on the talk pages is my real concern regarding this topic. Bzuk (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Agreed, this is one of the most bizarre claim I have ever heard. With respect to the original submitter, there is nothing to see here. I find the proposition that a drawing showed in the 1936 comedy for only a few seconds may contain some kind of hidden satanic message (visible only if you pay real attention to the image details and if you watch the movie with your TV upside down) to be beyond absurd.--McSly (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you blind?! It's obviously the dreaded 999 (50% more evil than 666), and the drawing is that of Satan's uglier brother...not. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "nonsensical" about this discussion, other than your continuing allusions to supposed "inappropriate" comments left on admin's talk pages, pages that aren't yours as you continuously delete comments that you find personally offensive. If the other admins don't object to constructive comments left on their pages, why would you? And that's just a simple question, no need for your unwarranted ire.

But there it is, 666. And if you need to remove the picture, then you can at least replace the YouTube link so that others can form their own opinion. Now, if Wikipedia has objections to displaying what may be meant to be subliminal satanic messages on its site, then say so. Users can find their own way around this type of obstacle as they search for the truth, and Wikipedia won't be anxious about incurring liablilty of any sort. No problem there! But your site has many pages dealing with satanism, this is just another oddity that could be interesting to some users. No need for the hostility from admins.

And a brief interlude. Was Senator McCarthy a satanist? Is this picture, in fact, a drawing of McCarthy in his youth? When he was only 6.66 years old? Wait, sorry, 9.99 years old. There! Satan's ugly brother has been found! The end is near!--76.244.162.118 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, interlude's over. Bzuk's problem has been found, he suffers from hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia. But the doctor's in the house, a simple call to Sony Studios (which Columbia has become) should fix him up. But the operator at the studios becomes confused at the question, she doesn't know any Sony department that has any knowledge about old Columbia movies. So, she's either in Bzuk's employ or she's not supposed to be on Sony's payroll as she doesn't know anything about Columbia Studios.

Mr. Green in Sony archives also doesn't know anything about it.

--76.244.162.118 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:CIV, WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:NOR. Carrying on with this "string" is not constructive nor conducive to a rational discourse. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

My take First, my WP:OR as a reader:

• The drawing was made by a trained artist of some kind for a brief shot in the film, likely meant to quickly portray some kind of craziness or unhelpful fixation on the part of some character in the plot.
• As the IP says, there is information in this image (although this information is likely very vague, somewhat randomly put together and highly satirical). The mouth seems to be formed by upside-down script and numbers, the ears are formed with a reversed 3 and an 8, the nose is a cartoon characature of a ghost, the hair is made up of pseudo Greek-Roman architectural cofferings, stars, what could be a pentacle, a radial sketch, some tidily done cubist overlays and some 666s drawn upside down.
• Yes, I think they are 666s drawn upside down. My friend (who graduated from a snotty French 4 year fine arts academy) moreover insists these are sixes drawn upside down (not 9s drawn right side up).
• The desired effect was likely to briefly unsettle the audience in an original way. I don't see anything at all subliminal here, I see workaday Hollywood storytelling and emotional manipulation, not unlike (and not so effective as) what Hitchcock did with Salvidore Dali in Spellbound a decade later.
• I wouldn't read all that much into it. The notion of 666 has been in biblical texts for many centuries and during the 1930s people in North America were exposed to all kinds and sundry religious lecturing and talk, even in Los Angeles.
• This doodle is very ugly and no fun to look at.

Second, my take as an editor:

• I can't find any sources which discuss this drawing, much less the 666s.
• Without sources to cite, there is no evidence these 666s are notable or enyclopedic and there is nothing to put in the article narrative about them.
• They are not self-evidently 666s, calling them 666s is WP:OR.
• This edit would have to be supported by at least one verifiable citation of a reliable source (such as a film critic or historian).
• Assertions unsupported by a reliable, verifiable source can be removed by any editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, your French friend is good enough for me, I'll go by what he says. The Depression was also a factor in the extreme religious furor of America's 1930's. It was a very bleak time. So, what we have here is maybe the first verifiable use of 666 in a Hollywood production. What did it have to do with McCarthy? Maybe your French friend can help there, but in the meantime perhaps you could put this reference back in the movie's article where it should be. Pulitzer? Bill Mauldin!--75.55.39.225 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the first verifiable use of 666?! Are you still unable to discern that no one supports this view other than the anons you are using. I reiterate, read WP:CIV, WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:NOR. Carrying on with this "string" is not constructive nor conducive to a rational discourse. FWIW , you do not have a consensus on your viewpoint being inserted. Bzuk (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Read the post above mine. Reiterate all you want to, you're just arguing with yourself. If you feel that this "string" isn't worth your time, then don't participate in it unless you have something worthwhile to bring to it. You have lost your veracity by what you've done with the 666 screen image on Dirk Beetlejuice's talk page, posting it and then removing it. If it wasn't supposed to be posted there in the first place, why put it there? Are your other Wikipedia habits as inconsistent? And it appears that someone is attempting to satisfy your Wikipedia requirements of reliable sources.--75.55.39.225 (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You again have absolutely misconscrued the comments in this discussion, no one is supporting your interpretations. I removed the aforementioned image because it is not intended for any other use. Your continued insinuations are considered personal attacks and are not acceptable- see WP:CIV; any further comments in this vein will result in administrative action. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Bzuk. Your input is necessary, I see that now. I have responded to you on my user page, you may respond there at your convenience, and thank you! And please excuse my confusion, I had difficulty understanding why you would post the screen image on different admins' talk pages only to remove it at a later date, stating that it wasn't supposed to have been posted there in the first place. This is obviously not meant to be a personal attack, nor is it meant to be any type of criticism of your obviously superior admin skills, it is merely my extreme confusion on how you could have contradicted yourself in such a manner. This is in no way meant as a disparagement of the way that you have handled this 666 matter. I'm sorry that you have felt that way. And I don't know how I could have "misconscrued the comments in this discussion," as the above poster states that a professional voiced his belief that the symbol is, in fact, 666. Please, again, have patience with this topic. If you have the time, reference the statement where the poster says that the symbol is not, in fact, 666. And thank you for your courtesy.--75.55.39.225 (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide a citation from a reliable, independently published source which supports your assertion(s)? Without such a citation there is no way your edit will last in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

ANother discussion that belongs on WP:LAME. Really. Move on to something that matters. ThuranX (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My nitpick for today: WP:LAME is for edit wars and the IP has not edit warred in the article space. Hopefully this is going to calm down now. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A point of clarity, the concerns began with an edit war that was carried out not on the article page although there was a edit-revert-edit-revert involving a bot, and three editors, but on various user talk pages where examples of tenditious ((see: [1]) editing was exhibited. Wherein tenditious editing is vexing, the comments made on the talk pages, "stepped over the line" into personal attacks. See: ANI Request. This is the main concern, not the claim of "666" being present. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

There have been quite a few recent edits to the article, none of which seem to be from the poster that Bzuk complained about. As a matter of fact, Bzuk seems to have made numerous recent posts himself. The poster complained about doesn't seem to have done too much to the article at all. An ANI request for this? No, a bit much there.--76.212.153.191 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to criticize Bzuk. Instead, might I suggest one find a verifiable citation from a reliable, independent source which supports mentioning the image in this encyclopedia article? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Still no criticism of Bzuk seen by me. But now in the "Etymology of Pixilated" section it says that "pixilated" probably came from the word "pixy." Bzuk hasn't objected to this inclusion, although I haven't seen any pixies in the movie rightside up or sideways. Has anyone requested a reliable source for this inclusion? Where did the word "pixilated" come from? I'd like to ask for a verifiable source for this inclusion, as it is merely supposition and not supported by fact.--76.212.153.191 (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Any mention of the relevance of an (upside down) use of 666 in this article MUST be backed up with a citation. Otherwise it can and will be removed from the article. It doesn't matter if it is upside down or right-side up. Even if someone in a movie were to say "six-six-six", referring to that dialog as meaning anything other than the number six hundred and sixty six would be original research. If you read the discussion on this page you will better understand the rationale of the policy. Without citations people will argue endlessly about the meanings of every last detail. Wikipedia is not an original source. There is no point in arguing about these doodles unless someone can produce a citation that is relevant. Case closed. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Might I add, I think there is literally nothing further to discuss about this until a meaningful citation shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, that's about it until reliable sources are found. Oh, wait, unreliable sources are used in the article in spots, though. Unimportant spots, like "pixilated," so that's OK. But important spots (like where the image 666 is, a real 666 subliminal and not 999 at all) need better reliable sources. So end of discussion, fini.--76.212.157.252 (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard course of events on almost every page is this:

• Someone adds something uncited.
  • Nobody challenges the content, it remains uncited, perhaps a citation is added later.
  • The information is questioned on the talk page or removed from the article.
    • The information returns with a citation.
      • There is discussion about the reliability, verifiability, or relevance of the citation.
      • There is the addition of counter claims with their own citations.
      • There is discussion about how much weight a section or citation should be given in the overall article.

This is the way Wikis work. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus for more about this. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Deeds-screenshot.jpg

Image:Deeds-screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pixilation

There's a section on the etymology of "pixilation". I've no idea why. If MDGtT really did popularize the word, this fact may be worth noting; however, even if it did popularize the word, the word's etymology seems irrelevant -- unless perhaps the movie (which I've never seen) presents a folk etymology.

Further, a description in a book that isn't a dictionary and a brief mention in Chambers are hardly enough on which to hang a whole section. The place to look is of course the OED (the big one), and the article there is most interesting. As most of the older examples come via a single issue (17/2, 1942) of American Speech, one can infer that this had an article on the word. I'll try to get around to looking it up; though others here are most welcome to beat me to it. (I'm pretty busy with WP-unrelated stuff.)

The OED also cites an article in Notes and Queries that explicitly comments on the use of the word in this film. (I think it was N&Q: I don't have the dictionary here and didn't make a photocopy.) "My" library won't have that.

I hope I don't need to say this, but "pixilated" has spelling variants: "pixillated", "pixelated", etc. (Yes, "pixelated" long predates discussion of pixels.) Incidentally, the word doesn't appear in the first or second edition of Webster Unabridged despite having emerged in the 19th century, though you will find "pixy-led".

Don't get carried away here. Remember, WP is not a dictionary.

Intelligent comments are welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought your cleanup of the section was helpful. So helpful, it seemed (for me, anyway) to show how non-notable and dicdeffy the whole section was, so I removed the section from the article as a one time try at cleaning this up. If anyone wants to restore my deletion, please do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good move, Gwen. But then things quickly went downhill. I read: The bucolic Vermont town of Mandrake Falls, home of Longfellow Deeds, is now considered an archetype of small town America. Sourced to a review of the film by a blogger. And The words doodles and pixiliated [sic] were popularized by the film and entries for them appeared in dictionaries shortly after. Sourced to Capra himself. Capra wasn't a lexicographer, as far as I know, and is hardly a disinterested source on his own influence. If this stuff is worth saying, look it up in the journal American Speech. If it doesn't seem to merit the effort, or if your library doesn't have fifty-plus-year-old issues of American Speech, wait for somebody else to do it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I deleted the whole section to begin with (after your helpful cleanup revealed it to be more or less empty). Another editor then added it to the Popular culture section. I agree it's all too thinly sourced to put in the narrative (but your having added the word claimed helps put it in context). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. It seems that other editors have other opinions. We now read: The bucolic Vermont town of Mandrake Falls, home of Longfellow Deeds, is now considered an archetype of small town America.[9] Citing an article that doesn't very obviously say any such thing, though I only skimread it and am not sure. The words "doodles" and "pixilated" were popularized by the film and entries for them appeared in dictionaries shortly after.[10] Citing a book by Capra.

Question for Bzuk: How can a book by Capra be an authority for the claim that two words were popularized by one of his films and that entries for them appeared in (unspecified) dictionaries shortly thereafter? -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi H, here is the actual verbatim quote: " "Mr. Deeds" became a household word, "doodling" and "pixilated went into the dictionary, and Jean Arthur – with the voice that broke into a thousand tinkling bells – finally became what she should have been all along: a great star." (Capra 1971, p. 180 with a further mention of the words' impact on page 186 where Capra groups them with "o-filling" as words that were accepted in small-town America as well as in major cities.) I realize that with McBride's recent analysis of Capra's biography, a number of the claims made in The Name Above the Title: An Autobiography are challenged including Capra's claim that Mr. Deeds Goes to Town was the first film to have his name above the title, which wasn't technically true as his name only appeared on a separate card in the credits and it was not until You Can't Take It with You in 1938 before his contract stipulated that his name would appear above the title as a Frank Capra film. However, the significance of the words has not been considered as invalid. Most of McBride's biography corrects the historical record where Capra has either embellished or misconstrued events. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC).

But Capra was neither a lexicographer nor a disinterested observer. I see no reason why we should believe any such claim merely because (a) Capra made it and (b) McBride hasn't disputed it. (After all, McBride doesn't present a scholarly annotated edition of Capra's autobio. When he doesn't question something, he doesn't thereby confirm that it's true.) Why not just wait till we see what's written in American Speech? This may even be in "my" library. I'll check. Or perhaps it's in yours: among journals that look at least a bit academic, it's remarkably widely stocked (I think because it's not demanding of the reader, and has a lot of pleasant near-trivia). -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Granted that Capra was not an academic but he certainly was an astute promoter and would have been very aware of how his film would have fared with the public. I am not sure why a quote can't be accepted merely because Capra had been challenged on parts of his biography. This is a minor issue, merely connecting the points, the words appeared in the film, people thought they were somewhat memorable, dictionaries included the words. Not a really huge issue IMHO, but the statement does have a reference and is acceptable under WP:AGF. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC).

I AGF by both you and Capra, but the point is that Capra would have written much of his book according to his somewhat sepia-toned memories of his younger days, or of what somebody told him about them. Propelling one word or three into dictionaries is a minor achievement but it's an achievement all the same and I don't think you normally take people's own word for it when they say they've achieved this or that. Compare nymphet: that article may seem at first to source the claim for its entrance to the English language to Nabokov himself, writing on p441 of his book; but actually a long endnote by Alfred Appel starting on p.339 is what explains this, and Appel specifies the dictionaries. (Every appeal to The Annotated Lolita is to p.441; presumably this is instead intended to mean something somewhere by either Nabokov or Appel within this book that ends on p.441.) Appel is an authority on Nabokov's achievements, Nabokov is not (even though Nabokov's account of his life has rarely been challenged); McBride is an authority on Capra's achievements, Capra is not. I'd be happy if you said that "Capra claimed that"; I'm not happy when the identity of the source isn't obvious to those who haven't bothered to look at the footnote. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Granted that Capra sensationalized some aspects of his biography, I cannot see the reason why he would have made a dubious claim for the words in question. Simply, they appeared in dictionaries after their use in the film. I searched through all other Capra books and cannot find any competing views over what is essentially a minor aspect of popular culture. I will check the full Oxford Dictionary to see if there is any competing references, but nothing I have come across is in dispute. Based on this logic, everything that Capra ever said would be suspect but that is not what McBride states. Where there are different interpretations or difference based on authenticated historical fact, he states them. Capra in his later life repudiated much of his earlier work including his castigation of Glenn Ford but I have never come across anything that deals with the Deeds section other than McBride correcting Capra's much-used "first time use of his name above the title" but even this is based on a technicality and not an outright falsehood. Capra made amends for many of his characterizations and these are on record. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC).

Based on this logic, everything that Capra ever said would be suspect: An understatement. Everything that anyone says about him or herself is suspect. You don't automatically reject it all, but you do look for better sources. -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate if another authoritative source is found, then there is reason to question the comment by Frank Capra. The overall concerns that later biographers and film historians had were with major issues and although Capra was feigning and self-absorbed in his biography, not all of it is repudiated. He himself regretted his individual instances of character assassination but great amounts of his biography remain as detailed and telling testimony to the life and times of a filmmaker. When you have located a source that is in direct contravention of Capra's noting that some words fashioned by Kelland and Riskin did not enter the popular vernacular, perhaps you can revisit this argument, which again is about a minor point of contention, most probably ignited by the earlier conflab over sourcing. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC). I just noted your revision to the article which I assume is based on WP:BOLD but I regret that this talk page forum was not the place to sort out the circumstances and you simply insinuated your interpretation. Added to the earlier disparaging edit comment you made, I have lost interest in this article and I'm signing off.Bzuk (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC).

You seem to have changed your mind about the last part, because six minutes later you edited the article. I'll put your edit aside for a moment. ¶ Look, I'm not concerned with Capra's particular respect for the truth or his particular memory. But I've no good reason to have a particular regard for either, and in principle I don't take people's word for it when they say they've achieved this or that. I'm willing to take their word for it in some circumstances, but only reluctantly. ¶ The OED does not indicate how popular words are at any time. Nothing that it says contradicts Capra's account, but it also doesn't (and can't) confirm it. I found his account plausible when I found that no, the word indeed does not appear in either the first or the second edition of the big Webster, and N.B. the latter came out as late as 1934. The OED cites a single issue of American Speech. Today I got hold of this. I'm happy to say that the article not only vindicates Capra but expresses the idea more powerfully: true, it doesn't mention dictionaries, but it does talk of a nation-wide vogue, which surely eclipses mere dictionary appearances. In adding this, I did remove mention of doodling, but perhaps wrongly I didn't think this was a big loss. I hardly think I was bold at all: I was pretty circumspect, I explained myself here (perhaps at too great a length and perhaps unconvincingly, but I did try) and I present the best sources one could reasonably hope for, explicitly described. ¶ As for your subsequent edit, it's not bold, it's not objectionable, it's all in good faith and all that, but it is puzzling in certain small ways that I can't be bothered to list. ¶ Meanwhile, I'm utterly mystified by your charge that I simply insinuated [my] interpretation: what interpretation and what insinuation? (Or is it possible that you have simply misread something that I wrote?) ¶ Anyway, I hope your upset won't last long and that you'll stick around and do more work on this article. -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

After an edit that I made, the following edit comment was made, "Article quality plummets again." I am not sure how else I would interpret this other than your judgement as to the quality of the edit despite the fact that the edit was sourced, which you challenged as to the veracity of the source. I am still not convinced in this instance there is a real issue with the statement as it concerned a mainly obscure reference to the way that two words that were largely unknown were seen by the public as notable and appeared in dictionaries shortly after. The fact that the movie was judged to be the "Best Picture of 1936" already is testimony that a large audience had seen it. I rarely if ever revert a sourced statement as the use of "revert" is normally reserved as a tool to fight vandalism. I will revise, alter, change words or provide context, but I do not revert a "good faith edit." That being said, there are exceptional circumstances that may preclude the normal practise of editing; I just didn't feel that in this case, a very minor point that was made based on background reading and research of sources, warranted the amount of time and effort that it has undoubtably cost both of us (and others, likely who have come upon this scholarly and comprehensive discourse about the inclusion of two words in a dictionary). I would prefer to spend time writing and "shaping articles" rather than elaborating on particular reasoning behind seemingly insignificant submissions. If you do check the edit history on this article, you will see that it has had many authors and I do not claim ownership. However, my last edits have been carefully written, although you tagged one of them as "this does sound like the ramblings of a blogger" although the exact wording was actually my own and I only extrapolated the essence of the passage from an external source (link), albeit, not on first blush, did I notice it was a blog as it had the trappings of an article. I did say I would not contribute further but even your edit citation with formatting changes required, got me to reconsider that I already had invested considerable time to this article mainly in trying to explain why tendenitious editing was occuring (which in an aside, you noted that the word tendenitious was spelled inaccurately with the added comment regarding the nature of the drawn-out discussion on the ANI, "I'd lose my ability to write English too!"). Perhaps you can see why I have been slightly vexed by this new deliberation in this forum over two words being mentioned as a popular culture reference. All of this comes after a series of repeated attacks on my talk page and on other pages that questioned my motives for challenging the use of an unsourced interpretation of imbedded satanic imagery. The ANI that I initiated led to my seeking assistance from a number of admins to provide a logical resolution to a contentious issue. The admins including yourself that did become actively involved, predominately looked at WP:RBI and WP:DFT as the most successful means of proceding. That was done but then the editor in question, used the argument that the inclusion of the derivation of "pixilation" was an example of the lack of coherent policy in regards to sources. The argument posed was if that word could stand with questionable sourcing then his statement about the use of "666" should also remain in place. The end result was I felt a "knee-jerk" reaction in removing all mention of the entymology of the word which I thought was a bit of over reaction since there were sources provided by the original submitter and the statement had been in place with slight revisions for a period of time. My efforts in at least finding a mention of the popularity of the word and "doodle" led me to try to find a quote which although I knew it was from Capra, I still considered it was not one of the disputed parts of his controversial biography. My attempts to provide a statement that closely mirrored a quote in a source however has led to this elaborate discussion "string." I don't mind sharing my reasoning behind my use of referencing materials, but I have little need for any "colouring" (Canajan spelling – sorry can't help myself here) of the edits made. FWIW, if you wish to continue this discussion, I would suggest taking it out of this talk page and going to "my place or yours?" Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC).

Yours! I'm bringing a bottle of rather good Marsanne, and some bread and paté de campagne. -- Hoary (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like someone else brought the pixies in to throw 666 out. Evil little gremlins, other people have seen it now. Pass your bar exam? Tee hee.--76.212.150.146 (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)