Filmdoctor1

Welcome!

Hello Filmdoctor1 and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on spam
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest
• FAQ for Organizations

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Ckatz^chat_spy 08:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

My best guess for the reason your dissertation was removed was because it was unpublished. however, general consensus is that unpublished references that are publicly available still work. Find out who keep removing your edits and try to work out a compromise with them, but since this dissertation is YOUR own work, try to avoid a conflict of intresests. Best of luck

Ryan shell (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 

• The problem is that it is a source that few people have access to and since it is not mentioned in the article itself in any way, there's no point in adding it as it is not improving the article in any way. What is the reader supposed to make of this listed in the article? It's not published, it's mainly inaccessible, there's no context given in he article itself. freshacconci talktalk 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Amos Vogel has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. freshacconci talktalk 23:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a perfectly valid addition IMHO. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This unpublished thesis was not used as a ref for any of the articles it was suddenly added to, looks like self promotion WP:COI. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO it looks like premature addition. As it's unpublished, we don't have access to it. However once published, and thus presumably accessible at least to academics via inter-library, I'd certainly hope that it might add something to the links between Vogel and Cinema 16. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Filmdoctor1 has re-added his doctoral thesis because, apparently, it is available via inter-library loan from NYU. However, the more important consideration is that it is unpublished, and therefore hasn't been vetted by a publisher. It therefore cannot be considered to be a reliable source, and should probably fall into the self-published category. Once it is published - presumably by a reliable publisher and not by one of the many self-publication mills, we take it that the publisher has done due diligence and the book can then be cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Interlibrary loan

Please don't add comments that books are available through interlibrary loan. Which book is availabnle through the loan system will bedepend on the library involved and the systems it is connected, so while the information may be true in your experience, it cannot be generalized. I'm going to rollback the edits you've already done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Also if, as I suspect, you are the author of the books you are spamming into these articles, please stop. If your book is important enough, other editors will use it and add it as a reference, your doing it is entirely inappropriate. Please see our policies on editing with a conflict of interest and Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding you comment on your user page: I don't know how to talk with other users, particulary those who are making changes to my posts, you're doing fine. Use a user's "talk" link to leave a message on their user talk page, and sign your comment with 4 tildes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Cinema 16 was changed by Filmdoctor1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.967225 on 2013-01-04T05:06:40+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Filmdoctor1, Cluebut reverted your edit because you inserted a comment into an article. Please do not do this again. If you want to post a comment, you can do so on the article's talk page by using the "Talk" link at the top of the article page. Please note that new comments go at the bottom of the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• And, again, the answer to your comment as to why your dissertation is being removed is the same as pointed out above and on my talk page - it is unpublished, and therefore is not considered to be a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a thought, though: if you want to help contribute to the Cinema 16 article, I presume that your dissertation is properly referenced, you can add information from the thesis and cite it to the original source you referenced it to there, without citing your dissertation. That will have to do until such times as it is published. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Confused"?

Now you write on your user page that you are "confused", so I'll try to make things clearer:

• All material on Wikipedia must be verifiable
• In order to be verified, we require citations from reliable sources
• Unpublished works are not considered to be reliable sources
• Your dissertation is unpublished
• Therefore your dissertation cannot be cited anywhere on Wikipedia for any purpose whatsoever.
• So please stop trying to include it in various ways in article, about 5 editors now have told you should stop

I hope that's clear and that you are no longer confused. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Doctoral dissertations are published. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. I'm not saying that Filmdoctor1 should be citing his own work, if that's what it is, but the policy does consider doctoral dissertations to be published, verifiable, and reliable, and it's important to remember this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that, but the next bullet point says that dissertations should only be used if they can be shown to have entered academic discourse via entries in citation indices. I've combined these two buller points together to make that clearer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

From Stephen Dobi: By not allowing my dissertation as a reference for Amos Vogel and Cinema 16, this is what users are missing;

• Dobi, Stephen J., Cinema 16: America's Largest Film Society. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. New York University, 1984

Contents: Introduction; The Formative Years; Something for Everyone; The Art of the Film; Conclusion. Appendices: Arthur Knight on the Experimental Film; Film Courses at New York University; Film Courses at The New School; The Children's Cinema; Films Shown at George Eastman House; The Robert J. Flaherty Awards; The Creative Film Foundation Awards; Organizational & Institutional Renters; Index of Filmmakers (Alphabetical and also Premieres); Index of Films (Alphabetical List, Features Premiered by Cinema 16, Shorts Premiered by Cinema 16, Films "re-introduced" by Cinema 16; Speakers at Cinema 16 events.

Abstract: This study examines the sixteen year history (1947-1963) of this unique film society. It looks at its beginnings, goals, motives, biases and method of operation. It examines how the organization saw its role in film art and commerce; how it defined the job it set out to do, and how it accomplished that job.

It examines in detail the many projects Cinema 16 created for its membership of over 7,000 cineastes. These included Regular Programs, Special Events, Film Appreciation Courses, The Children's Cinema, excursions to George Eastman House, Robert J. Flaherty Awards, Creative Film Awards, program notes, and its major contribution to American Avant-garde film exhibition and distribution. Cinema 16 introduced to America the works of Lindsay Anderson, Kenneth Anger, Michelangelo Antonioni, Stan Brakhage, Robert Breer, Robert Bresson, John Cassavetes, Shirley Clarke, Bruce Conner, Carmen D'Avino, Vittorio de Sica, Ed Emshwiller, Pierre Etaix, John Hubley, Tadashi Imai, Humphrey Jennings, Gavin Lambert, Jan Lenica, Norman McLaren, Andrzej Munk, Leopoldo Torre-Nilsson, Yasujiro Ozu, Roman Polanski, Karel Reisz, Tony Richardson, Jacques Rivette, Lionel Rogosin, Arne Sucksdorff, Shiro Toyoda, Stan Vanderbeek, Agnes Varda, Herbert Vesely, among others.

In sixteen years it presented over thirteen-hundred films ranging in length from sixty seconds to features, most in premiere showings. It arranged for subtitled versions, music tracks, paying for "dupe-negatives," importation costs, customs fees, and always paying rental fees.

Cinema 16 conducted symposia and lectures on films and related topics. Personal appearances were made by Rudolf Arnheim, Joseph Burstyn, Joseph Campbell, James Card, Salvador Dali, Maya Deren, Ralph Ellison, Frances Flaherty, Richard Griffith, Nat Hentoff, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kramer, Fritz Lang, Lotte Lenya, Norman McLaren, Sidney Meyers, Arthur Miller, Jean Renoir, Hans Richter, Dylan Thomas, Parker Tyler, Willard Van Dyke, King Vidor, Tennessee Williams, Archer Winsten, Robert Wise, Fred Zinneman, and others.

Its greatest contribution was to the avant-garde--all of the leading and subsequently famous names in the film avant garde of the period were premiered at Cinema 16. It helped create reputations.

A forward solution to this problem would be to improve the publishing and visibility of your dissertation. When completed, how will it be published? Is this accessible, either publically, through university loans, Highbeam accounts or for a paid fee? What licence would it be under? If your dissertation is genuinely valuable (I've read Vogel's own book for years, but I know nothing about Vogel himself and would appreciate knowing more) then where are the cinema-relevant media that ought to be interested in it? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, see, this can't be the solution. It is already published by being accepted by NYU. It's on deposit and available in their library. See WP:V for the fact that it doesn't have to be easily available to be published, just available. Beyond My Ken's point was that it's not widely, if at all, cited, and NOT that it's not published.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

But that's the point I made above, it's not enough for it to be a finished and accepted dissertation, it also has to have "entered the academic discourse". Someone with access to citation indices should see how many cites it has. Without showing that it haa been taken in by the schoirlarly community, it can't be said to have properly vettted - an advisor and a dissertation panel is not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I agree with that. Publication is the act of making public. By being on deposit in the library it's published. By entering into the academic discourse it can be judged more reliable or less reliable. Anyway, it clearly doesn't matter in this case, but it's mattered to me in past arguments. Carry on, then!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not correct. Publication involves public distribution (hence the name), putting a copy in the library isn't publication, it's storage. The policy you cited meant that for our purposes we would consider a dissertation which meets certain criteria to be treated as if it was a published work, it wasn't re-defining what publication means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Any published dissertation has been "vetted" – just try defending a thesis or sitting through a viva some time! A thesis is not automatically published, just because it's submitted.

Publishing once though doesn't mean that's as far as it goes. If greater visibility would be useful, can the author achieve greater visibillity? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I realize that a dissertation has been defended, and there are also the advisor or advisors, but that's not a substitute for publication, I don't think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's simply wrong to say that a thesis or dissertation hasn't been published, simply because a book plugger doesn't take a box of them into Waterstones. Publication can certainly include the making public of a document by making it available through recognised libraries and catalogues, no matter how few copies this involves. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Ask any aspiring author what they mean by having their woek "published" - it's not about haveing a single manuscript copy in the local library, believe me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Steve Dobi writes: Thank you all for discussing this. My point is that my defended, copywrited dissertation, currently available to the public, is the single best source on Cinema 16 and Amos Vogel's work written to date. My dissertation defense was chaired by the famous film historian, Jay Leyda. Although I cannot prove it in any way, before anyone else spoke, Jay Leyda noted, "At a time when an essential part of film history is about to be lost, perhaps forever, Steve Dobi has done a masterful job of saving this knowledge for anyone interested in the history of film." I was terrified that I was going to get torn apart. By saying what he did, he let the other committee members know how he truly felt about the book's contribution to film history. I sailed through. I remember his words verbatim because they were so empowering. One does not forget praise like that. It is unfortunate that the powers that be here have found reasons for denying the information in this book to Wikipedia users. You have these things listed as topics, and the most valuable information about them will never be known through this service. It is enough to make a film historian cry.

And I write some more. Is anyone of you the boss of the others? Who gets to make the final determination? All I want to do is to list this as a source under a number of topics where it will add value: Amos Vogel, Cinema 16, Experimental Film, Maya Deren, some other filmmakers who got their start at Cinema 16 and program notes of their films partially included in the dissertation. I also wrote a Masters thesis at Penn State called "Preston Stuges: American Phenomenon." This is a superb examination of his career and films. It should be listed as a source for him, for "screwball comedy" and other topics related to him. Users are missing out on some important stuff about these topics if the books cannot simply be listed as sources. Who is the boss here?

And finally. I don't care if it gets published by a "recognized" publisher. I have moved on. I thought it would be good to let users know this information existed and is easily accessed by anyone who wants it, that's all. This is good research, good information. Let those adults who read it decide if it is useful to them or not. If it does not get out there, it will not change my life. If it does or doesn't, it might change the life of others.

Your thesis and/or dissertations were not used as a source for anything in any of the articles you added them to. You just listed your thesis as "Further reading" near the bottom of the page. So readers are not missing out on anything. Plus you repeatedly claimed several things that are not true, like Preston Sturges being the first producer/director. He was not. Cecil B. DeMille was a producer/director 30 years before Sturges. So I have doubts about your research being reliable. What you are doing is self promotion, which is going against WP:COI. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Filmdoctor 1 writes: Thank you for sharing. Have you ever heard the story about "Ready when you are, CB?"

There are two aspects to "publication" in this case. Firstly there is the editorial aspect of checking that something meets WP:RS. Rightly (see New quantum theory and similar psychoceramics!) WP has an issue with self publication. We demand some degree of independent editorial process or peer review. Now in the case of this evidently uncontroversial and welcomed piece of social history research, we shouldn't lower our standards, but those standards are, I would claim, met by the usual academic review processes and are met here.

Secondly there's the aspect of publication for gaining a wider audience. Now I'm a physicist, not a film maker, but we use things like preprint servers (look at DSpace) to "shelve" electronic copies of our work. This puts them out into a space where they're publicly accessible, widely distributed, accessible at low cost and reliably archived. They address the issue of "just one bound copy on the publishing university's library".

I see the further reading / cited refs issue as trivial – that's an issue for article editors. As someone reading library indexes, I often find that a paper looks relevant and should be listed, but I can hardly start citing it until I've read a copy. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)