View source for Talk:Annie Hall/Archive 1

{{Talk archive}}

==Sex & Politics in Annie Hall: Not Essentially a Political Comedy at All==

Yikes, that looks like [[Wikipedia:What_wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought|Original Research]].  Regardless of the quality of the essay, I don't think it really belongs here... see the above link for a good explanation of why not, because that section clearly qualifies as a Critical review.  What I'm getting at is that you're doing a bit too much original analysis for an encyclopedia article, especially since you aren't citing sources (see [[Wikipedia:No original research|Original research]] for more).  It seems like a great review, and I'm not trying to be rude here, but it just isn't exactly what Wikipedia is for.

What would be very useful and appropriate is a simple bulleted list of literary, political and other references made by the movie.  I doubt ''anyone'' can recognize them all off the top of their heads.  I'd be happy to generate that from your  essay (and adding whatever else I can think of).  

Also, you can host your essay elsewhere (see [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Other_options|here]] for some appropriate and free places to put it.  And of course linking to the essay on the Wikipedia entry would be fine.

Please let me know what you think! --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 21:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

:I've removed it several times, the user doesn't seem to appreciate it, and simply reposted it after sending me a hostile e-mail. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 22:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

== No 'Original Thought' eh?! ==

Ok, well I am new to Wikipedia, and admit I wasn't fully familiar with all of the guidelines. But since Wikipedia is intended to be an (online) encyclopedia, I had assumed that articles or essays were welcome, as they are often found in more conventional, print-based encyclopedias. I've had a look at the guidelines you've cited and, leaving aside the humour in the section title ('Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought'), I take your point that Wikipedia is not intended as a forum for 'original analysis'. I have to say though, I'm not sure I understand the following line, in Section 2 (Critical Reviews): "Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles." What does this mean? 

Personally, I think it's a pity if Wikipedia intends excluding essays and sticking to fairly dry, factual articles. Maybe there should be an 'Essays' section for each Wikipedia entry?

As far as sources go, I'd be happy to cite sources if that would make the article fit the Wikipedia criteria. I'm not sure what I've written is really all that 'original', as I'm certainly not the first to notice the political theme in Woody Allen's work. 

I don't think much of a useful list of references in Annie Hall could be generated from my article, since I'm really only dealing with political references. In any case, while such a list might be useful for researhers, it'd make for wuite a boring read, without at least some commentary or linking text.

Are you an Administrator on Wikipedia? Do you have a final say iin whether a section added to  teh Annie Hall entry stands or not? If it's really the case that my edit is not welcome, perhaps I will condsider hosting it somewhere else.

Thanks  --[[User:Johncarvill|Johncarvill]] 10:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

:Oh no, I'm not an admin.  And even then I wouldn't have final say exactly.  I know it can seem kind of silly at first that essays and other "original thought" are excluded, but consider the many topics more controversial than ''Annie Hall''... letting people publish their opinions and analysis wouldn't work too well.
:I think Wikinfo [http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?] or Everything2 [http://www.everything2.com] would both be great places for your essay, and a link from the main article here would be fine.  Even an abbreviated, NPOV version of your article (citing sources) would probably be fine with me.  But there's no rush, I'm not going to delete your essay from the main entry.
:I hate to make it sound like I'm saying "I don't want your essay here, it's not welcome".  I'm just one random guy anyway.  But WikiPedia does have policies that are clearly outlined, and there are places to debate those policies, but I can tell you that they do make sense the longer you're around.  --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 16:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

::Well, it's just that this kind of writing is not what an encyclopedia is meant for. There are primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Something like a film, a document, is a primary source. Something that references primary sources is a secondary source. A tertiary source, like an encyclopedia, is supposed to be like an overview of secondary and primary sources. As purely a catalogue of pre-existing knowledge, it is not the place to put forward NEW ideas or NEW analyses. If you had your essay published, and we could cite it, for instance, then we could discuss its contents here. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 22:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

== A few comments in support of John's content ==

I've just read the original article and then taken a look at this ongoing discussion. My feeling is that John's excellent additions on the political aspects of this film are similar to what anthropologists term [[thick description]]. As such, his comments on the film seem to me to be helpful to viewers/readers who might miss some of the cultural references within the film on a first viewing. Wikipedia is a broad church and needs to be flexible enough to cope with interesting and informative approaches, within the constrains of the neutral point of view etc.

To provide an example from another film, would it be legitimate to add an explanatory section to an article on [[Citizen Kane]] about contemporary political references, the expressionist cinematography of Toland, deep focus, lighting, or sound editing issues? It is my belief that a bit of depth here would be an excellent way of suggesting to someone new to this film that Orson Welles was innovating within the Hollywood system and, as such, ''could expect guidance on this from an encyclopedia entry''. Given this, it is legitimate to include these sort of materials within Wikipedia. Similar points could be made about what could be included in an article on early [[Godard]], [[Westerns]] or [[The Simpsons]]. It seems to me that John is doing  something valuable with his reflections on Annie Hall. I certainly don't have a problem with this being hosted on Wikipedia. Long may his mouse click.

Here endeth the sermon...

[[User:Rmackenzie|Rmackenzie]] 23:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
:Indeed, and Peter Cowan dedicates several pages to a "Glossary of Cultural References" in ''Annie Hall'' in his BFI monograph ({{ISBN|0851705804}}). If it wasn't plagiarism, ''that'' would not look out of place on wikipedia. [[User:The JPS|The JPS]] 20:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

:Do you mean Peter Cowie?
--[[User:Johncarvill|Johncarvill]] 21:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
::Oh, yes, so I do. [[User:The JPS|The JPS]] 21:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Brief response via Cleanup: I agree with [[User:Rmackenzie|Rmackenzie]] about the validity of ''thick description''. However, this is forgetting the whole deal of [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. Here, that format is fine if it draws on specific, stated, reputable, external sources for the analysis. Otherwise, for all we know, it's just some editor expounding their own personal crit of the film. But this is academic in this case, as the style isn't remotely encyclopedic. I think it should be treated as disputed content and moved to the Talk page for discussion of what can be salvaged. [[User:Tearlach|Tearlach]] 02:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

== P.S. On the other hand... ==

...As the one armed economist said... Your section is a little long, John. Brevity is the soul of something or other. Perhaps you can condense it slightly in the way suggested, rather than moving it wholesale elsewhere in cyberspace.

Ho Hum...

:Herewith, the sound of one hand clapping? Agree. [[User:Doovinator|Doovinator]] 06:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

== Edits made by 'The JPS' ==

I have responded to edits made by 'The JPS' on his Talk Page:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_JPS#Annie_Hall]

:I'm new to this discussion. But.

1. Sign your posts...always
2. Post here if its about this article, not on someone's talk page
3. You might not like dry articles, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a thought forum.
4. Original research are things that you have researched yourself and do not come from any existing source. The section you keep trying to do add is indeed OR. 
5. I would suggest starting a blog or your own web page if you want to do things like this. Wikipedia is not the place for articles like yours.

Thanks. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 06:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

:In response to Woohookitty:

:I posted responses on The JPS's page becasue that's where he posted, and because that's where he says users should respond. 

:"Original research are things ..." This does not make sense. Neither does, "The section you keep trying to do add is indeed OR".

--[[User:212.57.231.174|212.57.231.174]] 12:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
::You may find it useful to read this:  [[Wikipedia:No original research]].  Quoting from the relevant portions:  ''Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".''  In other words, anything you add must be backed up by a reputable, verifiable published source.  You can't pull something from your own head and expect it to stand unchallenged without sourcing. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 15:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

== Tothebarricades ==

User Tothebarricades has scattered responses that I didn't see until now. Lets clear something up. Here is the entire text of the email I sent him:

"Who are you to just remove my edit? Without even the courtesy of sending me a message or putting a note on the 'Discussion' page? Please desist."

I was not being hostile, I was just a bit peeved that this guy removed my entire article without even informing me.

--[[User:Johncarvill|Johncarvill]] 21:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
:Users are not obliged to inform, or ask permission, to make changes. Indeed, the software effectively does this task via the 'watchlist' feature. For example, I have over 500 articles. This enables people to immediately review changes. [[User:The JPS|The JPS]] 22:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
::There's certainly no requirement that someone ask permission to make changes.  In fact you should expect your work to be endlessly refined.  But, it is considered good practice to explain major changes on the talk page afterwards, particularly ones that might be considered controversial in some fashion. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 15:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

::And just to clarify, additions OR subtractions should be discussed. I don't mean a sentence or two, but adding or subtracting several paragraphs of material certainly warrants discussion. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 05:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

== Removal of the Sex and Politics section ==

Hello The JPS, I am not an impostor, but a genuine contributor, if there is a way that I can prove this, please let me know and I shall do so. I think it is a real shame that the 'Sex & Politics in Annie Hall: Not Essentially a Political Comedy at All' section of the page has been removed, and that when I reinstate it you immediately remove it again despite it not having been yourself that removed it originally. 

It seems that you have fallen out with the author of text and are now just blindly doing whatever you can to frustrate him. The reasons for removing the piece are indeed debatable when considering the rules of Wikipedia, however in my opinion the page on Annie Hall is almost completely pointless without this section as most of the other information could be gained from the back of the DVD box. I would like to reinstate the text again but won't enter into a battle with you if you plan to continually remove it. Please let me know why you removed it and what you intend to do from now on.
:Neil, thanks for coming to talk.  First, please use four tildes in a row to sign your comments on talk pages; it makes it much easier to sort out who has said what (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).  Secondly, there are a few problems with the text you want to insert.  First, it's entirely too long.  Second, it is not in encyclopedic style (would you read this in Britannica?  No.); it reads like a school essay.  Third, it's not sourced.  Please read [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]. It's fine to briefly summarize ''someone else's'' scholarly, published discussion about how Annie Hall is more about sex and politics, provided it's properly cited, but you can't include your own or anything that appears to be your own take on the matter. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 22:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

:Message to Katefan0 - Can you let us have a look at an essay you did at school which reads like my Annie Hall edit? Look forward to seeing it. Neil, thanks for the support, I'm not going to add the edit back in again, what's the point? And to the folks who keep counting up my meagre tally of wikipedia contributions, yes I realise I'm not qualified or experienced enough to be a true wikipedia nerd, but it's a pity wikipedia is dominated by those who have a passion for pedantry rather than a knowledge of, or interest in, the subjects they're posting about. What JPS et all seem most interested in wikipedia itself - they appear to be very much in love with its rules and regulations (we all know that type in real life). Also, they all take themselves very, very seriously indeed. What a joke.

--[[User:Johncarvill|Johncarvill]] 06:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, which is that this is an ''encyclopedia'' project. Wikipedia succeeds because every effort is made to ensure that the content is entirely factual. If this were not the case, it would be a relatively useless website full of spurious opinions. [[User:TheMadBaron|TheMadBaron]] 09:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
::Yes this is a serious project. There are several places where people joke around and have fun (especially BJAODN), but the article space isn't the place for it. So if you don't understand that, maybe you shouldn't be editing here. If you think that we have no interest in what we are putting on the site, then look at [[Katharine Hepburn]], which is one of Katefan0's contributions. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 09:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

::John, I'm sorry you've taken offense; I never meant any.  If that's what this was -- a school essay -- I'm sure it was lovely and probably well-received; I wasn't passing judgment on it.  All I'm trying to get across to you is that something written as an essay -- no matter how well done -- is not proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia article.  If there were some published, scholarly treatises on sex and politics in Annie Hall, it would be more than appropriate to briefly summarize (and cite) it, but the way you're going about this is all wrong.  I ask you again, would you read a school essay -- any school essay -- in Britannica?  Please remember that this is an encyclopedia.  We live and die by the reliability of our information.  If everyone's essays were included here, how could Wikipedia ever be considered a reliable source?  Take a look at [[WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is Not]], which states:  ''WP is not for personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.'' &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 11:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

: KateFan0 - I have great trouble reconciling the following statements:
1. John, I'm sorry you've taken offense; I never meant any. 
2. If that's what this was -- a school essay -- I'm sure it was lovely and probably well-received.

It was you, not me, who suggested that what I wrote read like a school essay. That's pretty insulting.

--[[User:195.62.204.155|195.62.204.155]] 12:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
::Well, regardless of semantics, I wasn't passing judgment on its quality.  I was saying that its ''style'' -- which was written LIKE an essay -- was not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Again, I never meant any offense.  It's fine as a concept, but it must be properly presented -- and properly sourced. Do you have a ''published'', reputable source that you can summarize for this particular information you'd like included?  If so, I'd be glad to help you properly include it in the article.  If not, then it is regretfully not appropriate for inclusion for all the reasons that have already been discussed. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 14:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

:::Yes, but what you actually said was "it reads like a ''school'' essay" [my italics], which implied that it reads as if it were written by a schoolboy (or schoolgirl). So, unless you thought I was a schoolboy, how can that not be insulting?

--[[User:212.57.231.174|212.57.231.174]] 15:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure how many more times I can say that I'm sorry you took offense.  I meant "school" in the loosest sense.  It is in essay-style -- my only point.  Really, if you dislike having your additions critiqued, Wikipedia may not be the most comfortable place for you.  As it says on the bottom of the page every time you edit, ''If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.'' I'll ask again:  Do you have a published, reputable source that you can summarize for this particular information you'd like included? &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 15:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

::::::Not sure what you mean by 'I meant "school" in the loosest sense'. Just humour me, give me an example of a sense in which you might have used the term 'school essay' which would not imply that the article read like an essay someone would write for school.  I have no problem being edited, I would have been delighted if others had come along and added to what I wrote, corrected mistakes, etc. But many just deleted my entire edit without the courtesy of informing me. Some of the first people who posted comments were saying that they did not think my edit was suitable (original research etc.) - and that's fair enough - but they made their points in a polite, non-argumentative manner.  I do now realise that under the wikipedia regulations my article was unduly discursive, rather than being strictly factual. But there does seem to be a rather over-zealous culture of rules and regulations on wikipedia, and people bang on and on about how it's an 'encyclopedia'. Here is the news: wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia, it's an 'on-line encyclopedia', no reader of any wikipedia article is going to take it as seriously as a real, established encyclopedia article, no matter how many grandiose references the pedants here make to Britannica. It's ironic that you quote Katherine Hepburn on your user page, "If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun."  I also still think it's a pity that more in-depth, non-controversial essay type articles are not a part of wikipedia, maybe another page similar to the Discussion page could host 'thick description' segments. I think it's instructive that in all this discussion, which in terms of word-count far exceeds my original article, no-one has mentioned anything at all related to Annie Hall or Woody Allen.

--[[User:Johncarvill|Johncarvill]] 18:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
:Do you have a source for the information you wish to add?   &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 18:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

:: '''Cultural misunderstanding alert!''' Sorry to stick my oar in but I just noticed that John is a Brit (like myself). North Americans often use 'school' to mean 'university'. Brits don't, there the word only means education for small children. John thinks he's being accused of writing junior school material; but I presume Kate is saying it reads like a university essay (which isn't so insulting, right?). [[User:The Singing Badger|The Singing Badger]] 18:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
:::Yes, of course. That's what I was getting at by saying that I was using the word school loosely.  Also, my emphasis was on ''essay'', not on ''school'' -- its style, not its quality. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 18:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

:::::So by 'school', you meant 'university'? Aye, right.  And yes I do have sources for pretty much everything in my original edit. What difference does that make? You have neglected to address my other points. By the way shouldn't you remove the description of Annie Hall as 'ditzy'? Isn't this opinion? Ah well.......... --[[User:Johncarvill|Johncarvill]] 07:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

::::::You have to source things. If you do not, then Wikipedia could very easily be sued for copyright infringement. it's the same reason why pictures posted here need to have their exact source cited. It's just like if you wrote a university paper and didn't source anything. You have to source. No two ways around it. does everything need to be sourced? Well, it's like with a college paper. If it's general knowledge or general consensus, no. If it's specific verbage from a book or article or paraphrasing from a book or article, yes. And btw, if you do source, your contribution will still be edited. This isn't a free form blog, i.e. everything gets edited by the community. So please don't get upset if you put your contributions in and they get edited. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 10:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Is there really any need to continue this discussion? I get the impression that this is an argument for the sake of an argument. Even if this school thing is resolved, there will be another convenient misunderstanding, or another escalating argument based on the identification of some stupidly minor issue. [[User:The JPS|The JPS]] 10:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

==Some advice==
Johncarvill, from what I've seen, you've only done 28 edits. So you would be considered a newbie. So I would suggest reading as many articles as you can on Wikipedia to see the style that's accepted here. Also, you may want to read the articles for deletion page to see what kinds of things are considered original research. Anyone can edit here, but it's always helpful to the community if new editors know the general guidelines of the site. Thanks. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 05:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

== I need a large sock with horse manure in it! ==

Well, nice to have JPS back, he chips in with yet another attack on me. He calls me a troll, bemoans my inexperience in editing wikipedia, trumpets his own thousands of contributions, etc. He laments my obsession with "stupidly minor issues." The words 'pot', 'black', and 'kettle' spring to mind. I'm going to dissapoint him now by not attacking him back. I'll leave him to listen to Elton John singing 'Candle in the Wind' (Princess Diana Version).

As for sources, I do indeed have a source for everything in my article. Where would I put these?  I don't see any quoted in the article as it stands, or on the Woody Allen page. Where, for example, is the source quoted for "He would later joke that when he was young he was often sent to inter-faith summer camps, in which he 'was savagely beaten by children of all races and creeds'"? 

The Annie Hall page as it stands is very sparse, and not a little insipid. You really have to laugh when you read things like, "Allen plays Alvy Singer, a comedian obsessed with death". Talk about reductive! I was trying to put some meat on the bones, to add something that might make a visitor to the Annie Hall page feel his/her time hadn't been wasted.

Well, this'll be my last word on the matter, I'm in rare agreement with JPS in that there really is no point in discussing this any longer. 

--[[User:195.62.204.155|195.62.204.155]] 12:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
:If you have reliable, verifiable sourcing for the sex and politics essay and can turn it into something encyclopedic, by all means do. Thanks. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 12:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

::One more thing. If you readd your material with sources, try to weave it in with the rest of the article if you can. If you don't know how, we can get it working after you've pasted the stuff back in, but try if you can please. I say that because if you look at any of the movie articles, they all have a similar format. Oh and one other thing. Again, try to look at some other articles if you have questions on sourcing. Or [[Wikipedia:Cite_sources]] has alot of information on how to site and where. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 13:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

== The Marshall McLuhan scene video clip ==

Just wondering why this was deleted, as this is a famous scene, and having a short clip of it doesn't seem off base. Just looking for more opinions on the matter...
--[[User:Supremelegend|Supremelegend]] 21:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

=="Best romantic comedy since Annie Hall."==

For any Annie Hall fans offended by that tag in the commercials for the new film, "Definitely, Maybe," here's a link to the article in the Times in London that actually launched this marketing line:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3278101.ece

It's important to note that the line, "it's the best rom-com since Annie Hall," was actually written by the newpaper's headline writer, not the reviewer (I'm a journalist; papers seldom go with the author's own headlines). Nowhere in the article itself, which actually bemoans the lack of intelligent romantic comedies in recent years, does the writer make any direct statement about "Definitely, Maybe" being on par with "Annie Hall." 
For those without enough time to read the whole piece, here's the sentence the headline writer picked up on: 
"What was the last truly great romantic comedy? Woody Allen's Annie Hall, in 1977. The Meg Ryan years produced a few little gems - When Harry Met Sally (1989) and the defiantly odd Joe versus the Volcano (1990). But they will always be guilty pleasures compared with Annie Hall's neurotic brilliance." 
The piece goes back further, to salute the older screwball comedies of Billy Wilder, Charles Brackett and Preston Sturges, then looks at modern comedies attempting to break out from the formula of bad chick-flicks, mentioning "Definitely, Maybe" as one cause for optimism. But the article also mentions "Juno" and even Judd Apatow's comedies. This film is only mentioned as a step in the right direction, not the greatest thing since Annie and Alvie. 
So . . . yeah. La-di-da.  [[User:Fishcough|Fishcough]] ([[User talk:Fishcough|talk]]) 01:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Fishcough<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Fishcough|Fishcough]] ([[User talk:Fishcough|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fishcough|contribs]]) 15:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Murder mystery?==

"The film was originally intended to be a drama centered on a murder mystery with a comic and romantic subplot, and was filmed that way. According to Allen, the murder occurred after a scene that remains in the film, the sequence in which Annie and Alvy miss the Ingmar Bergman film Face to Face.[2] After shooting had completed, the film's editor persuaded Woody Allen to cut the mystery plot and make the film a romantic comedy. (Allen would make a murder mystery film many years later, with 1993's Manhattan Murder Mystery, also starring Diane Keaton.)"

I don't have the expertise, but I wish someone who did would edit this to give a more well-rounded view of the role of editing in shaping the film.  A quick Google search brings up multiple references to the film's conception being far removed from its end result, including the possibility of a light murder mystery.  However as the article is written this particular possibility seems to be given more weight than it is due.  There seems to have been other early ideas that were discarded such as its being set in Victorian England (per TCM.com) and my understanding is that this murder mystery plot was abandoned before shooting was completed (or before shooting began, for that matter).  I seem to have read that the change to the film in the editing room was substantial, but that it consisted of making the film center around the relationship between Alvy and Annie rather than Alvy's relationships in general (i.e. his first two wives).  If someone has a more concrete grasp on these facts, it would greatly improve the article's accuracy.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.26.64.88|72.26.64.88]] ([[User talk:72.26.64.88|talk]]) 03:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I agree. There needs too be added a reference for the editing remark.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Barakpick|Barakpick]] ([[User talk:Barakpick|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barakpick|contribs]]) 20:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Italicized article title==
The title of this article is ''Annie Hall'', rather than Annie Hall.<br />
How was that achieved?<br />
[[User:Varlaam|Varlaam]] ([[User talk:Varlaam|talk]]) 01:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
:The article title itself is not italicised.  However, the first couple of words of the lead section are italicised.  The wikimarkup looks like this:
::<code><nowiki>'''Bold text'''</nowiki> -></code> '''Bold text''' 
::<code><nowiki>''Italic text''</nowiki> -></code> ''Italic text''
::<code><nowiki>'''''Bold italic text'''''</nowiki> -></code> '''''Bold italic text''''' 
:Incidentally, you would have got a quicker answer had you asked at the [[WP:HD|help deak]].  [[User:Astronaut|Astronaut]] ([[User talk:Astronaut|talk]]) 16:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

: Varlaam, the {{tl|Infobox film}} template does it automatically.  It includes (by means of a couple of nested templates) {{tl|Italic title}}, which sets the DISPLAYTITLE [[Help:Magic words|magic word]]. That allows the displayed article title to be set to anything you want; in this case it's just setting it to an italic version of the article's actual title. [[Wikipedia:Page name#Changing the displayed title]] explains further. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] ☻ [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

== To do ==

This article isn't a million miles away from GA status. It gets 1500 views a day, so it's worth getting it in better shape.

*The first Björkman (2004) reference covers its entire AH section. Specific page numbers should be given for each reference.
*The "Themes" section is in desperate need of development. At the moment we are ignoring a range of established scholars writing in peer-reviewed academic journals and books in favour of an online magazine. There is [[Peter Cowie]]'s BFI monograph for a start. Anyone else have access to an academic journal database?
*The reception section needs development, ideally locating some negative comments for balance.
*Awards need to be in prose.
*Once it's in better shape, we can take it to Peer Review, then to GAN.

The referencing system, although complicated at first, is pretty easy once it's set up. You just need to copy and paste an existing reference and replace the appropriate fields. If stuck, just do it as plain text, and I'll fix it later. [[User:The JPS|<span style="color:purple;">The <b>JP</b>S</span>]][[User talk:The JPS|'''<sup style="color:purple;"><b>talk</b> to me</sup>''']] 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
:Shouldn't the "Style and technique" section be incorporated within the production section? [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film]] doesn't accommodate this separate section. [[User:The JPS|<span style="color:purple;">The <b>JP</b>S</span>]][[User talk:The JPS|'''<sup style="color:purple;"><b>talk</b> to me</sup>''']] 23:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
::We should organize the article logically. The guidelines are just suggestions and not even very good at that. Given our material and the film itself, this seems like good organization, at least for now. For an example of really outstanding organization of a film article, check [[Titanic (1997 film)]] --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
:::A developed casting section can be incorporated within a L1 pre-production heading then. I have uncovered several analytical sources. They will take time to read  and summarise (and I don't have an abundance of spare time ta the moment) -- but eventually we can develop that rather embarrassing 'themes' section. [[User:The JPS|<span style="color:purple;">The <b>JP</b>S</span>]][[User talk:The JPS|'''<sup style="color:purple;"><b>talk</b> to me</sup>''']] 09:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Actually, if it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annie_Hall&diff=prev&oldid=481163870 "up to the editors"], then ''I'' prefer the version in the guidelines. It separates the practical production issues (including writing) from the analysis and reception. What is your argument for your preferred version? [[User:The JPS|<span style="color:purple;">The <b>JP</b>S</span>]][[User talk:The JPS|'''<sup style="color:purple;"><b>talk</b> to me</sup>''']] 09:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::Writing is not part of production. It happens before. The section on writing is about the writing and the section on production is about production. For an example of excellent organization of a film article, check [[Titanic (1997 film)]]. Woody himself has repeated the old saw that a movie is created three times: writing, shooting, editing. Or, pre-production, production, post-production. The guidelines fall short in their knowledge of film culture (note the strange mentions of crew). --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 13:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to help jump start the process to make this article into a Good Article [[User:NoD&#39;ohnuts|NoD&#39;ohnuts]] ([[User talk:NoD&#39;ohnuts|talk]]) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

==Cast list==
I think that some of those little paragraphs listed in the cast list should be moved elsewhere, for example the information on people noting similarities between the plot and Allen's real life could possibly be moved to the Legacy section. Also, the reports of Allen's poor treatment towards his actors should be moved to the Production section [[User:NoD&#39;ohnuts|NoD&#39;ohnuts]] ([[User talk:NoD&#39;ohnuts|talk]]) 23:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

:Since Allen himself is in the cast, discussing the similarities between his life and his characters is similar to discussing any actor's identification or similarity to the character he is playing. The cast list normally includes material on the actors, the casting decisions, the actors and their relationship to their work, and that is what is covered in this material. And there is no Legacy section anyway. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 01:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

::OK, I can understand what you mean. And plus there is a Legacy section, I added one below the accolades section. I looked at another romantic comedy page, ''[[When Harry Met Sally...]]'' and noticed they have a Legacy section, so I thought ''Annie Hall'' should have one as well. [[User:NoD&#39;ohnuts|NoD&#39;ohnuts]] ([[User talk:NoD&#39;ohnuts|talk]]) 15:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

==Clean up==
I was wondering wheather anybody would object to the use of SparkNotes as a source for the "Themes" section, cause I've noticed they've got a lot to say about the themes, motifs and symbols for ''Annie Hall'' ~~ [[User:NoD&#39;ohnuts|NoD&#39;ohnuts]] ([[User talk:NoD&#39;ohnuts|talk]]) 18:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:Do you think that is a reliable source? Seems like we could do better. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 22:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

::I would think it's reliable, but it's not the first thing I would go with. I'll search around for anyything that could help expand that section, but if I can't find anything reliable enough for that section, SparkNotes might be our best option. ~~ [[User:NoD&#39;ohnuts|NoD&#39;ohnuts]] ([[User talk:NoD&#39;ohnuts|talk]]) 22:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::SparkNotes is better than that amateur website that's there at the moment, although the lack of named author (and their affiliation) is worrying, as is the overbearing amount of advertising. A search at [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]] doesn't suggest any particularity precedent either way -- if anything, SparkNotes comes out of it well. I've made some notes from Cowie that I need to add. This film deserves a better article than what it has at the moment: come on, NoD'ohnuts -- let's see what we can do! [[User:The JPS|<span style="color:purple;">The <b>JP</b>S</span>]][[User talk:The JPS|'''<sup style="color:purple;"><b>talk</b> to me</sup>''']] 17:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

::::Awesome! Sure! :D I'll add the Spark Notes reference and we will see what happens during the Peer Review ~~ [[User:NoD&#39;ohnuts|NoD&#39;ohnuts]] ([[User talk:NoD&#39;ohnuts|talk]]) 19:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

== AFI recognition list ==

Do we want this list in the article? I have my doubts about it when it's basically covered in the text. I guess lists are frowned upon, as a rule. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:I think these AFI lists look untidy, so would support its removal. Wikipedia is not a scrapbook. [[User:The JPS|<span style="color:purple;">The <b>JP</b>S</span>]][[User talk:The JPS|'''<sup style="color:purple;"><b>talk</b> to me</sup>''']] 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:I would prefer to keep it; it's a very good summary of the AFI recognition the film has received [[User:NoD&#39;ohnuts|NoD&#39;ohnuts]] ([[User talk:NoD&#39;ohnuts|talk]]) 18:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
::There's a relateively recent discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_40#AFI_Honors_-_Yes_or_No.3F here]. I suppose we could keep it for now and see what happens when we take it to Peer Review. Although it's not sourced at the moment, which is not great... [[User:The JPS|<span style="color:purple;">The <b>JP</b>S</span>]][[User talk:The JPS|'''<sup style="color:purple;"><b>talk</b> to me</sup>''']] 19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I have a source for all of them, so it's all good. ~~ [[User:NoD&#39;ohnuts|NoD&#39;ohnuts]] ([[User talk:NoD&#39;ohnuts|talk]]) 19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::::No, the issue is not the sourcing. There is a question if this list belongs here. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 19:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::I looked at the discussion linked above. I think this is a matter for the page editors to hash out but I am not sure. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 19:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::It seems that the discussion seemed to suggest a consensus that it should be turned into prose. [[User:The JPS|<span style="color:purple;">The <b>JP</b>S</span>]][[User talk:The JPS|'''<sup style="color:purple;"><b>talk</b> to me</sup>''']] 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I don't see a consensus on that. There were views expressed on both sides of the question. That's why I think it is a matter for page editors. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

== Cream of the Crop ==

Is it worth it to separately mention the Cream of the Crop when it's a difference between 98% and 100%? This is a dubious listing in the first place (other Allen films don't make the distinction) and it seems to indicate some kind of [[WP:Peacock]] thing. Of course, I am fine with praising the film's greatness, but I think it is more effective to highlight genuine accomplishments, honors, awards, etc. A lot of films have 100% from RT. Other things are more rare. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 04:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

== Inflation adjusted gross ==

I don't see the importance of including the precise inflation adjusted gross when it is a number that changes every day. The comparison is important, the comparison to other films, but the number itself is superfluous. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 01:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

== [[Charles H. Joffe]] had sole credit as producer on this film ==

There is no dispute about this, just check the film's credits, or the poster. Because of that, Joffe alone won the [[50th Academy Awards|1977]] [[Academy Award]] for [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]], as the article correctly says. [[Jack Rollins (producer)|Jack Rollins]] was his business partner. They both managed well-known comics. But they decided Joffe would focus on Allen, and Rollins on others. So Rollins took no producer credit on this film or several others in the 1970s. There was much discussion of this policy on the Talk page for [[Template:Infobox film]], which clearly says ''Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc.'' I'm sure that also excludes uncredited business partners. - [[User:Gothicfilm|Gothicfilm]] ([[User talk:Gothicfilm|talk]]) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

== Producers ==

It might be worth considering if Joffe and Rollins did the job of producer or if it was Robert Greenhut. Some sources state that the partners were executive producers, and it is possible that they got the producer credit for bringing Woody Allen to the project while the production manager (Greenhut, it seems) did the work. Of course it is significant that Joffe received the Oscar and the film credit, but it's also significant that it is a Rollins-Joffe Production. Since Woody says they were both his producers and Rollins' name is on the poster, there is good evidence for more than one view. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 23:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

:As said above (since you started your own thread here instead of replying above), [[Template:Infobox film]] clearly says ''Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc.'' That would also exclude uncredited business partners. You're going against the policy. - [[User:Gothicfilm|Gothicfilm]] ([[User talk:Gothicfilm|talk]]) 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

::Are you going to be honest here or will we have to deal with an editor who intentionally misstates things? I have no patience with this form of nonsense. As you know, I've provided sources where Jack Rollins is credited as Producer. So, I guess since you lack the intellectual ability to understand this or the honesty to discuss it transparently, you really don't have the minimum requirement to exchange views. As you know, I've sourced Jack Rollins as producer. You suggested we consult IMDb; Jack Rollins is listed as producer. You are so far out in left field you claimed the NY Times is not a reliable source. What complete and utter nonsense. Please return to this discussion when you are honestly prepared to see that the article is accurate. Until then, your half baked assessment is incompetent. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite [[WP:Uncivil]], aren't you? Let's try again: [[Charles H. Joffe]] had sole "Produced by" credit on this film. I suggest you look at the film's credits, or the poster. Because of that, Joffe alone won the [[50th Academy Awards|1977]] [[Academy Award]] for [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]], as the article correctly says. [[Jack Rollins (producer)|Jack Rollins]] was his business partner, to use your term. They both managed well-known comics. But they decided Joffe would focus on Allen, and Rollins on others. So Rollins took no producer credit on this film or several others in the 1970s. There was much discussion of this policy on the Talk page for [[Template:Infobox film]], which clearly says ''Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc.'' I'm sure that also excludes uncredited business partners. - [[User:Gothicfilm|Gothicfilm]] ([[User talk:Gothicfilm|talk]]) 03:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:I note that some sources only mention Joffe, while others mention both Joffe and Rollins as producers. If there is a reliable source which gives the above information that "they decided Joffe would focus on Allen, and Rollins on others. So Rollins took no producer credit on this film", that would be worth including in the article. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time</sup>]]''' 13:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::After looking at the edit history on the article I've locked it for three days. If any editor has a disagreement with another editor on content, they should discuss it on the talkpage and not engage in an edit war. Edit wars destabilise articles. Please resolve the dispute here on this page. If you manage to reach an agreed solution I will reopen the article. I have decided on a lock because of previous recent history of edit warring on this article. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time</sup>]]''' 13:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:::GothicFilm, your contribution above is worthy of an editor. For the first time, you explained your position coherently and honestly. Well done. If what you say is true -- and as I've mentioned I see that sources differ on this -- then you should provide your source for your assertion as I have done. On the other side of the coin, I note that both Rollins and Joffe went to the stage to receive the Oscar and both spoke. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::::Am I to understand you never saw [[Talk:Annie Hall#Charles H. Joffe had sole credit as producer on this film.]] where I first attempted to open this discussion? Even though my first reply on this thread began ''As said above (since you started your own thread here instead of replying above)''? Unbelievable. - [[User:Gothicfilm|Gothicfilm]] ([[User talk:Gothicfilm|talk]]) 21:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::Film titles credit Joffe as the sole producer, though also says it's a Rollins-Joffe production. BFI makes no mention of Rollins in its credits list http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6bc053b7 I would suggest that it is solely Joffe who goes in the infobox. The fact that Rollins and Joffe both collected the Oscar can be noted elsewhere in the article. [[User:Yorkshiresky|yorkshiresky]] ([[User talk:Yorkshiresky|talk]]) 19:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:::It's true that according to the usual standards of the infobox we should hew closely to the film's credits. The article can show more nuance. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Joffe alone won the [[50th Academy Awards|1977]] [[Academy Award]] for [[Academy Award for Best Picture|Best Picture]], as the article correctly says. Every source I've seen agrees on that. Who went up on the stage might be interesting, but  it doesn't determine who won or is credited. The [http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/12/local/me-joffe12 L.A. Times obit] said ''He (Joffe) and Rollins remained partners through the late 1980s, when they each decided to focus on a single client. Rollins became an executive producer for David Letterman while Joffe mainly handled Allen and produced his films.'' - [[User:Gothicfilm|Gothicfilm]] ([[User talk:Gothicfilm|talk]]) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:No one disputes who was on the Oscar, so that requires no citation. But in Woody's own words, he described them as his "producers". The most authoritative source in English (NY Times) lists Rollins as a producer, as does IMDb. The late 80s is after Annie Hall was made, so that is perhaps more probative that they shared the work on Annie Hall. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::Why would you say the NYT is the most authoritative source? Better than the film's credits? There is agreement at [[WP:FILM]] and [[Template:Infobox film]] that the AFI and BFI are much better, and they only list Joffe as producer. From my experience the NYT is disorganized when it comes to film credits, and has gotten them wrong more than once.  And the L.A. Times obit was talking about Joffe's time with Woody from the 1960s into the 1980s. Joffe only took "Produced by" credit in 1969 and the 1970s. After that he always shared executive producer credit with Rollins, while the line producer got "Produced by" credit. - [[User:Gothicfilm|Gothicfilm]] ([[User talk:Gothicfilm|talk]]) 23:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:::If we had only one source for all subjects, NY Times would probably be the one, so it's the most authoritative. Your attempt to dismiss it is not a signal you are trying to be accurate. Still, I agree with you that any source may be wrong, including the Times. Film credits are sometimes wrong and they can't be corrected. Plus, your citation above -- the source you chose to support your view -- actually says that Rollins stopped producing Allen's films a decade after the making of Annie Hall. It is possible that Rollins produced the film with Joffe but they agreed for their own reasons that Joffe's name would go on the credits. We don't know. But if it is true that Rollins was producing Allen's films into the 80s, then he was a producer on Annie Hall. Do we have other evidence on this? I am quite sincere in my interest in having this correct. If Rollins did not work on the film as Producer, of course only Joffe should be named. But when the award was given for Best Picture, Rollins went to the stage. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 04:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

::::Did you even read what I wrote above? There is agreement at [[WP:FILM]] and [[Template:Infobox film]] that the AFI and BFI are the best sources. They're referred to all the time. I don't recall anyone there turning to the NYT as a better source for any film data. I already said the LA Times was talking about their whole history, not just the 1980s, though its wording in that sentence is a bit ambiguous. Nevertheless Joffe was not "producing" films in the 1980s, but he did take sole producing credit from the first Allen film on through much of the 70s. So that's what it's talking about. But I'm quite tired of debating with you, your [[WP:Uncivil]]ity, and your insulting, slanderous edit summaries - as can be seen at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ring_Cinema your history]. - [[User:Gothicfilm|Gothicfilm]] ([[User talk:Gothicfilm|talk]]) 04:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::There is nothing ambiguous about the material you quoted from the LA Times. It says Rollins was a producer until the late 80s. I asked for your source and that was the one you provided. So now you introduce two significant beliefs of yours: Joffe was not producing films in the 80s and he took the only producing credit on the Allen films from the period including Annie Hall. Yet, we also know that Rollins was sometimes a producer on these films. Allen calls them "my producers" and the LA Times says Rollins stopped producing much later. So then my question to you: what is the evidence that Rollins was not a producer for Annie Hall if the film credit was inaccurate for all the movies before Annie Hall and for at least several movies after it? You seem to say that the film credit is inaccurate but we should follow it anyway. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 05:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Outdent|:::::}} I worry that this discussion is getting a little bit too personal and going over the same points again and again, so let me just quickly offer my opinion. The fact that the on-screen credit, AFI, BFI, and the Academy Awards all acknowledge Joffe as the sole producer is overwhelming evidence that he should be the only one listed in the infobox. If anyone thinks it important to mention somewhere in the prose of the article, it would not be a problem to say something like "the film was produced by Charles H. Joffe for Rollins and Joffe Productions, a company headed by Joffe and Jack Rollins." If there are several reliable sources that list Rollins as a producer it would also not be a problem to add after that something like "Rollins is sometimes listed as being a co-producer on the film". But unless someone can find a source that says something explictly like "despite not getting an official 'producer' credit on the film, Jack Rollins did some of the production work" he should not be named in the infobox. [[Special:Contributions/99.192.89.169|99.192.89.169]] ([[User talk:99.192.89.169|talk]]) 14:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks for the comment. We are not repeating ourselves actually, so I don't know what you mean. GFilm's last post had two new things he thought were relevant, and we are discussing the meaning of the LA Times passage. We aren't in a hurry here. On the substance, the point to keep in mind is that some sources follow the screen credits pro forma, whether they are accurate or not. A screen credit can't be corrected after the fact, so if Rollins was an uncredited producer on previous films, there is reason to accept the sources that say he was a producer on this one, too. For example, IMDb has the following producer credits for Rollins through 1986:
 
1986 Hannah and Her Sisters (executive producer) 
 
1985 The Purple Rose of Cairo (executive producer) 
 
1984 Broadway Danny Rose (executive producer) 
 
1983 Zelig (executive producer) 
 
1982 A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (executive producer) 
 
1982 The Marx Brothers in a Nutshell (TV documentary) (producer) 
 
1980 Stardust Memories (executive producer) 
 
1979 Manhattan (producer) 
 
1978 Interiors (producer - uncredited) 
 
1977 Annie Hall (producer) 
 
1976 The Front (executive producer - uncredited) 
 
1973 Sleeper (executive producer - uncredited) 
 
1973 The Ted Bessell Show (TV movie) (producer) 
 
1972 Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask (producer - uncredited) 
 
1971 Bananas (executive producer) 
 
1969 Don't Drink the Water (producer) 
 
1969 The Kraft Music Hall (TV series) (executive producer - 1 episode) 
– The Woody Allen Special (1969) (executive producer)
 
1969 Take the Money and Run (producer - uncredited)

Note that they differentiate producer and executive producer. Note the five uncredited mentions. Note that he is listed as an uncredited producer both before and after Annie Hall. Fandango's filmography of Rollins has the same producer credits. 

Now, is the IMDb wrong? Possibly. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 18:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

: What IMDb says is utterly meaningless. They get things very badly wrong all the time. The most telling evidence in this case is the fact that Rollins was ''not'' listed as a producer for the Academy Awards. If he actually ''was'' a producer of the film, I find it mind boggling that he would not make sure that his name was included in the nomination so he could get an Oscar. Or if there was some reason his name got left off by accident or because he was being denied his rightful credit, then surely there would have to be ''some'' source out there somewhere talking about the "controversy" of him not being awarded an Oscar. Short of that, the only explanation that makes any sense at all is that in 1977 the film credit got it right and the Academy got it right and the erroneous credit subsequently crept into news stories because his name as part of the production company was on the film and he was a producer for other films. Hollywood people take credit and awards seriously, so much so that I cannot believe that he could have been denied an Oscar he would have deserved if he had been a producer and in the last 35 years never said anything about it. [[Special:Contributions/99.192.50.154|99.192.50.154]] ([[User talk:99.192.50.154|talk]]) 20:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.89.169)

::I agree entirely. [[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] says ''We aren't in a hurry here.'' He has a long history of edit warring and drawing out debates endlessly. I consider this closed. There is no logical reason for him to continue pursuing this, though I expect he will. - [[User:Gothicfilm|Gothicfilm]] ([[User talk:Gothicfilm|talk]]) 21:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

:::Actually, GFilm, you don't agree entirely, since you suggested we consult IMDb back when you thought it agreed with you (check your edit summary on 5 Jan: "This flawed NYT source does not overcome the film's actual credits, the poster, the IMDb, AFI, etc.") So, yeah, another dishonest claim by GFilm and unfortunately another occasion when he is not terribly interested in getting the facts correct in an article.

:::Now, as to the substance of the matter: is it true as 99 says above that there is no explanation for Rollins not receiving an Oscar if he was one of the producers? Well, no, it's easy to find an explanation: he was not a credited producer. The Academy doesn't go back and try to correct its mistakes, so that is an unrealistic expectation. That's not how it works. Should the article on Annie Hall be accurate about who actually produced the film, even if the credits are incomplete? Yes, it should be. So, as long as we are all committed to getting the facts right, we should acknowledge that Rollins is widely known to have worked as an uncredited producer both before and after Annie Hall. If there is some reason to think that Annie Hall was different, what is the reason? GFilm's source says that Rollins stopped working directly on Allen's films in the 80s sometime. That is after Annie Hall was completed. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 05:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:::: Ring, you have not really addressed my comments. Your theory is that the Academy made a mistake and so Rollins was not awarded an Oscar that he actually deserved, yet you do not provide any evidence that this is true. Show me a single source in the last 35 years where Rollins or someone else says "Rollins should have been awarded an Oscar but was not due to his name erroneously being left off the list of producers of the film". If that story is true, it needs a source and surely in 35 years ''someone'' would have said that. You also have not explained how Rollins allowed the error to happen in the first place. It does not seem plausible that he was eligible for an Oscar and did not make sure that his name was on the nomination in the first place. But again, should that unlikely event have happened, surely he or someone else would have commented on it in the last 35 years. Where is the source for that? In fact, there is not a single source that mentions that he was ever erroneously denied "producer" credit, even without mentioning the Oscars. How is it possible that this happened, yet no one has ever commented about it? The much more simple and logical explanation is that it did not happen but, as I said before, the fact that he was partners with Joffe and produced other Woody Allen films has lead to newspapers mistakenly giving him the extra credit.

:::: I should also point out that you have misread the LA Times obituary. It does ''not'' say that Rollins stopped working directly on Allen's films in the 80s sometime. It only says that Rollins and Joffe "remained partners through the late 1980s", which is a very different claim. No one disputes that they were partners when ''Annie Hall'' was made.

:::: But, like I said in my first comment, it is starting to look again like we are just going over the same points again and again now. I don't see that there is much more to add unless you can add a source explicitly saying that Rollins deserved a producer credit but was initially denied it. Short of that the best source is the primary source, which says he was not a producer. [[Special:Contributions/99.192.83.116|99.192.83.116]] ([[User talk:99.192.83.116|talk]]) 15:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.50.154 & 99.192.89.169)

:::: ''Pace'' my above comment, I do have one more thing to add. I noticed that the article cites Eric Lax's biography of Allen and I remembered that I have a copy of the 1992 paperback edition of it, so I looked up what it might say on the producer issue. On p.287 he writes, "All Woody Allen pictures are billed as 'A Jack Rollins - Charles H. Joffe Production' and Joffe was the on-set producer of four of the films through ''Manhattan''." Then at the end of the book there is a section called "Filmograpgy" which lists Allen's films and the credits. On pages 378 and 379, for each of ''Love and Death'', ''Annie Hall'', ''Interiors'', and ''Manhattan'', it says "Producer: Charles H. Joffe for Jack Rollins and Charles H. Joffe Productions". Those would be the four films he was referring to. The evidence that Rollins was not a producer, but his name appears in the production company name resulting in some news sources being confused seems very strong. [[Special:Contributions/99.192.83.116|99.192.83.116]] ([[User talk:99.192.83.116|talk]]) 18:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::Fantastic. Thanks for finding some actual evidence from a good source. I really appreciate it. Now we have the evidence we need to have the article correct. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 05:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

== Films set in the 1940s; Films set in the 1960s ==

Annie Hall is grouped into both of these categories. After viewing the film I see no indication that it takes place in any year other than 1977.

:What says "1977"? --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 17:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

== Awards and any accompanying title designation ? ==

According to the following Awards should be used and stand alone without "and Honors." What is the correct form on this:

NOTE: From '''The English Patient''', the edit summary of a very involved wikian: "Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,948 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (→‎Awards And Honors:  Rm. " And Honors" from sub-heading See WP:MOS) (undo)"

Would someone of this caliber do something contrary to WP? I would hope not.[[Special:Contributions/76.170.88.72|76.170.88.72]] ([[User talk:76.170.88.72|talk]]) 22:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

== Edit warring ==

Thanks for edit warring, rather than bothering to use the talk page. In terms of cast recruitment, see [[WP:FILMCAST]]:
:1. "A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section."
:2. '''Production''': ''pre-production'': recruitment of the most important artists (cast and crew) and shooting preparations
- [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what it says later in the style guide. Read section 4.3. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 23:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For example: "The real-world context about actors and their roles may vary by film. Real-world context may be about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast for the role, and what preparations were necessary for filming. Development of a film article means a basic cast list may evolve into a bulleted list with several sentences devoted to each person. In other cases, a list may be maintained and be accompanied by prose that discusses only a handful of cast members."

And you were doing the warring, since I was returning to the status quo. 

Now, if it throws you off that the word 'Casting' is used, that can be changed. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 23:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

:4.3 is what I quoted from.... "A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section." There seems to be an awful lot of reverting going on with this article and I'm not altogether surprised it failed a GA if some of the basics can't be followed. The lead, for example, is too short to cover all the salient points of the article. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 23:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You quoted from 4.3 and from 4.5. I'm afraid you aren't following the basics correctly. According the MoS, Cast is a separate section as we have it. According to MoS, the casting of the film can be included under pre-production, but it's not required. So the article is correct as we have it. 

(By the way, speaking of basics, you completely butchered the quote in your first post above. Very strange that you made it seem that 1. and 2. above are next to each other in the MoS. Are you trying to be deceptive? Busted. There is nothing that says "2. '''Production''': ''pre-production'': recruitment of the most important artists (cast and crew) and shooting preparations". Why did you try to make it look like those were in the same section? --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 23:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

:No, I'm not being deceptive and I didn't butcher the quote, so you can fuck off with the accusation. I raised two points and numbered them accordingly: that's bloody obvious, so don't try and play stupid games. Read it properly, and I quote in full from the MoS for those too stupid or lazy to read properly:

::'''Production'''
::The "Production" section can be organized into four parts, coinciding with the chronology of a film's creation (see the [[Filmmaking]] article):
::*''development'': development of the concept and script, as well as the securing of financing and producers
::*''pre-production'': recruitment of the most important artists (cast and crew) and shooting preparations
::*''production'' or ''filming'': actual filming – dates and places, important artistic decisions, and noteworthy events (delays, reshoots, financial problems, etc.)
::*''post-production'': completion of special effects, musical scoring and sound, and editing
::This section should be structured to fit the available content: for example, if there is sufficient material about each topic, the section could be organized into subsections (such as "Development" and "Filming"); some topics may be interlinked, for instance, to handle situations when a film has different writers attached throughout its development. Thoughts from the cast and crew can be interwoven into this section, but such content should be substantive and avoid a promotional tone (especially during a film's marketing campaign).

:Oh look, the words as I quoted them, oh look, you've accused me of lying incorrectly. I look forward to the withdrawal of your smear. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 00:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Sorry that you're wrong, but you are. So be it. A separate Cast section is explicitly included as an option in the guide, word for word. So you're just plain wrong. It also says information about the cast members can be included in that section. Word for word. So you're just plain wrong. So you made a bunch of snarky comments when you were mistaken. Okay, that's what happened. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 00:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No Schro isn't wrong Ring. You're going against general MoS guidelines whether you like it or not. I appreciate the work you've done on the article but it really has to comply with the norm on here otherwise other editors are going to do it anyway. All I have to do is restore that paragraph to the lead summarizing the article (not trivial as you say as there's a theme section on it) and it would pass GA. I'm not going to have my effort on this hampered  over something so minor.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 07:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:Yes, he is wrong and no, I'm not going against the guidelines. Whether you like it or not. Sorry, but the MoS says a Cast section is fine as written and that has exactly zero bearing on GA. If you lack the experience with film articles to know that, you should take a step back until you have it. The paragraph you are discussing is quite trivial and doesn't belong in the lede. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 13:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::''Cast'' section, not ''casting'',  which always comes under production in film articles.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 21:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:Oh, look, it's not #2 following your #1. So I was precisely accurate and you were mistaken. As you know now, this article is organized entirely in keeping with the MoS, despite your completely erroneous and quite snarky remarks to the contrary. No problem, you've been corrected. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 00:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
::?? I have no idea what your understanding of the above is, but your lies have not "corrected" anything. There is a massive ownership problem on this article and you are the cause of it. We have an MoS to fall back on when there is dispute on how to proceed and you are failing to get close to it,insisting that your own version is some how better, even when numerous editors have told you otherwise and when the MoS contradicts everything you are saying. I suspect ANI won't be too far away from you if you keep up the posturing on this, - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 00:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry that I have the MoS on my side and you don't, but that's how it is. There's no ownership problem at all, just an ordinary difference of opinion getting worked out. Sorry, again, that the MoS does not back you up on this issue. As it says: " A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries". And it says: " Development of a film article means a basic cast list may evolve into a bulleted list with several sentences devoted to each person. In other cases, a list may be maintained and be accompanied by prose that discusses only a handful of cast members." That is exactly what I am proposing and how this article has been for a long time, with many editors contributing. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 00:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

From the MoS: "Development of a film article means a basic cast list may evolve into a bulleted list with several sentences devoted to each person. In other cases, a list may be maintained and be accompanied by prose that discusses only a handful of cast members." --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 00:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You do not have the MoS "on your side", nor do you own this article, which you seem to think is the case. You have reverted the information at least four times. Once more and I'll happily report you. I'm stepping away from this, because dealing with such an entrenched owner of an article is never a happy experience. Well done for ensuring the article will not,grow beyond your mediocre ability. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 00:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gareth_Griffith-Jones#Annie_Hall Canvassing too]? Not at all helpful or constructive. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 00:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:Neither is essentially asking someone to be a meat-puppet for you so you can get the revert you want (but are now unable to do on your own). 3RR is supposed to tie an editor's hands for a reason, [[User:Ring Cinema|Ring]].  Ever hear of disruption?  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|Winkelvi]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span>  00:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

== Should lead summarise article? ==

Ring Cinema removed a paragraph from the lead which summarizes a large section of the article by dismissing it as trivia [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annie_Hall&diff=599357935&oldid=599351483 here]. I'm, told that in order for it to be reinstated on a protected article we need consensus here to readd it? Ring has argued that the lead doesn't need to summarize the article. [[User:TonyTheTiger]] said the same thing during the review and Ring again rejected the idea. [[WP:Lead]] says otherwise, '''The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview.''' Thoughts people? ♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 16:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:No particular theme is so important to deserve special mention in the first section, since we summarize the nature of the film in the first paragraph, implying the real themes of the film: the nature of love and relationships. (Let me mention that you misquote me: I didn't say it's trivia, did I. No, I said it's "somewhat trivial", and for the lead section that is true.) The matter of Allen's feelings about New York are already given too much prominence in the article. I don't think it is the most important theme yet it's placed first in the Themes section. The film is not much about New York (cf. [[Manhattan (film)]]) except tangentially and the commentators recognize that. The idea that each and every minor point made later deserves mention in the lede is not a good recipe for a coherently organized article. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the sexuality and Jewish and Psychoanalysis themes are given more attention. The lead paragraph I had didn't just mention location but psychoanalysis as well. The lead should be a concise version of the article. If we have a lengthy section we should at least have a sentence or two about it in the lead. I just really think this article deserves to be promoted to GA after your hard work on it, and as it stands you're the only one stopping it from being promoted. Can't we try to come to a compromise on this? If you just let our minor dispute over where the casting should be and this paragraph in the lead rest the page block can be lifted and Krimuk can do the review and we'll have it at GA by the end of the week. It is really that much of a big deal?♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 17:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:If you want to fix something, fix the Themes section so that the film's more prominent themes of love and loss are emphasized. Then the lede will comport with the article and satisfy everyone. Every minor point taken up in the body does not deserve mention in the lede. If you read the commentators, I believe you will find that the film's main subject matter (one type of theme) is the the nature of love. The other "themes" (in the sense of repeated motifs) are the others you mention. So, unfortunately, the lede's correct summary of the film's subject is distorted in the Themes section and now you are trying to bring that error into the lede under a misguided wish to satisfy standards that aren't worth anything in the first place. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 17:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.sparknotes.com/film/anniehall/themes.html

"How fitting then that Annie Hall’s theme—in spite of the miserably unfair world that Allen discusses at length—settles on love being the answer. What makes life worth living, Allen argues, are those brief moments of happiness that occur in our endless pursuit of love. In the end, after Alvy and Annie have broken up and moved on from one another, Alvy resolves that lasting relationships are almost impossible, and yet life without love is no life at all." http://www.deepfocusreview.com/reviews/anniehall.asp

:*As it currently stands this should not pass GAN because the lead does not get close to summarising what follows. There are a number of themes in the body that have no mention in the lead, which can and should how by another few sentences to ensure it complies with basic MoS requirements. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 17:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::Fix the Themes section. The idea that each and every minor point mentioned in the body of the article should be mentioned in lead is obviously mistaken, so we can ignore that. And if you erroneously think that's what GA requires, GA is worthless anyway so we can ignore GA and improve the article. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 17:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
If you weren't a gutless coward you'd have reported it by now. I'm out of this discussion while you're being so childish. I provided the link to report on Gareth's page: use it or shut the fuck up. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 17:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I take this as an admission that the best compromise involves a fix on the Themes section. I am in agreement with that course of action. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 18:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:No, obviously I have not said that and it would be a lie to claim it as such. From your lack of filing at the sock puppet investigation forum, I will take that as a withdrawal of your uncivil, petty and cowardly accusation. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 22:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It is your opinion that GA is worthless, fine, you're entitled to think that. But I don't think it is worthless and I have every right to edit the article and promote it to GA. I get a very strong sense of ownership issues from you Ring Cinema and a tremendous feeling that you're incredibly arrogant and stubborn, always right about everything, are you a Leo by any chance? It really isn't your place to hamper editors from promoting articles to GA. The article is as much mine as it is yours. Search for Annie Hall in google books and you'll find a health balance of scholarly discussions about love/sex, psychoanalysis and Jewish identity, enough anyway to constitute the coverage in the article and a basic summary of the main themes in the lead. You've been ''wrong'' about everything so far!! I wonder how many people agree with you Ring that the lead shouldn't summarise the article? ♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 19:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:The lead section needs to mention the themes per [[MOS:LEAD]] since the "Themes" section makes up a good part of this article. Is there a middle ground we can find here, using only 1-2 sentences? To use an example, the Featured Article [[American Beauty (film)]] has a big "Critical analysis" section and has one sentence (at the end of the first paragraph in the lead section) to summarize that section. [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema's answer to that would be simply to nuke most of the themes section just so it doesn't have to be added to the lead Erik. That isn't right is it?♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 20:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:The main theme is already covered in the first paragraph. I would suggest correcting the problem in the Themes section first as the best compromise. New York City is a symbol, psychoanalysis is a motif at best. The main theme is the nature of love or relationships or is love real, etc. That is covered in the summary of the film, and that is adequate. Perhaps it is bothersome to some that it is handled relatively deftly and efficiently, but that is a virtue. There's no need to drag in material that is relatively trivial to pad the section and prove we are summarizing later sectiosn. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 20:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This could be tacked onto the end of the second paragraph:

"Like in many of Allen's other films, the nature of love is a central theme of ''Annie Hall'', and it contains motifs such as psychoanalysis and retrospection, laced with humor. Allen's character of Alvy Singer is identified by scholars with the stereotypical neurotic Jewish male."♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 21:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, is your hang-up that the content in "Themes" should not be defined as themes? What if we emulate ''American Beauty'' and rename it to "Critical analysis"? That way, we can have a sentence similar to what ''American Beauty'' has in terms of what academics have stated about the film. In addition, MOS:LEAD states that we summarize the article body, in particular to encourage readers to read the full article. Readers will not know that there is a full-fleged "Themes"/"Critical analysis" section if we do not say anything about it in the lead section. [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::It's even mentioning themes in the lead which he is against. I told him that the lead at least has to mention it at the very least to effectively summarize the article as it is an important part of the coverage in books. Ring Cinema also disputed adding the casting section into production, that's what started the edit conflict, see the page history and the above section.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 21:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::It's not a good idea to characterize someone else's views, Blofeld, so don't try it again if you can't get it right. As I've mentioned before, I'm completely in favor of mentioning the major themes. I should mention that the edit conflict began because SchroCat didn't accept that, per BRD, my revert should have led to discussion, not his insistence that his reading of the MoS was the only rational one. I don't accept Erik's assertion that readers "will not know there is" a Themes section if it's unmentioned. Most film articles don't mention that and I think readers are savvy enough to look at the contents links. These are all red herrings. That said, I would like to propose a change to the first paragraph summary that I'm working on. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 22:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}Produced by Allen's veteran manager, Charles H. Joffe, the film co-stars the director as Alvy Singer, who tries to figure out the reasons for the failure of his relationship with the title character, played by Diane Keaton in a role written specifically for her. Their demise as a couple leads to his contemplation of the film's central theme, the nature of love and relationships. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:Ring Cinema, [[MOS:LEAD]] says, ''"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."'' Since the "Themes" section makes up a good portion of the article body, the lead as a summary should mention this aspect of the article. If there are other articles that do not summarize a "Themes" section in their lead section, they may be oversights that need to be fixed. In addition, MOS:LEAD says, ''"Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article,"'' which was why I mention that part of the guidelines. While the section is identified in the TOC, it is just the one word seen. The lead section is a space where we can have 1-2 sentences summarizing the "Themes" section to interest readers. {{user link|SchroCat}}, do you have an opinion on what to do with the themes? [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 23:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::No, Erik, the Themes section is not particularly important compared to other parts of the article. The main theme is the nature of love, if we properly define theme as the main subject of the film. And if trivial material is starting to dominate the article, that should be fixed immediately. I'll say again: the Themes section is very poorly written. It doesn't differentiate between the film's main subjects, its motifs, and its recurring tropes. These are three different ways to use the word theme and that needs to be fixed first. As soon as that is accomplished, my proposal will make good sense. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 23:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:::The themes section is the best part of the article!! Only you didn't write most of it so it's wrong obviously. You might have a point about changing the section title to critical analysis but it's not very poorly written at all. I've met some arrogant people in my time on wikipedia but I've rarely seen such a [[Know-it-all]]!! Unbelievable. This is wikipedia, ''not'' your book. Start compromising with people or go away. This one-minded stubborn approach to encyclopedia-building is contrary to what is expected here This is a ''public'' resource, not solely your own. Somehow you seem to see yourself as some sort of authority on the films of Woody Allen. It is your opinion only that themes aren't important. Hundreds of books indicate otherwise, all mentioning the same issues which are discussed in the article.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 07:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::I'd like to recommend that everyone commenting here find sources to support their views, as I have done. Everyone knows this movie is about the nature of love and relationships, and they say so. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 23:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Ring Cinema, what about re-titling "Themes" to "Critical analysis"? We do not need to apply the label of themes to the sub-topics under that section. We can state that academics have noted the contrast in the settings of New York City and Los Angeles, the stereotype of gender differences in sexuality, the presentation of Jewish identity, and the elements of psychoanalysis and modernism. That would come after the general statement of the film's general theme. It would encapsulate that section per the lead section guidelines. Why do you think we should not mention these elements at all in the lead section? Do you dislike the academic sources, or just the way the summaries of these sources are presented in the article? I don't think it means that we can't have a sentence in the meantime. [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 23:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Why are you trying to cram that material into the lead? The film is overwhelmingly understood to be about the nature of love, as a thematic matter. Is there some reason we should falsify that or ignore what every meaningful critic has said on the matter? Why aren't you trying to cram into the lede that Keaton's clothes were widely copied or that Star Wars was predicted to win the major awards? I think it is easy to see that some things are important and some things are left for more detailed analysis. The material on psychoanalysis is based on one scene and a couple fleeting references. The whole movie declares throughout that it is trying to find out about love, literally from start to finish. Does it bother you to put that in the article? --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 00:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::How is it "cramming" material into the lead?? It's merely mentioning that those issues have been identified by scholars. ''You'' don't decide what is notable, the books do. There are [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Annie+Hall+psychoanalysis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=mbIiU43BCo3Y8geu_oHIAg#channel=sb&q=Annie+Hall+psychoanalysis&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=bks tons of sources] documenting psychoanalysis and which state it is a film about retrospection and love. It isn't just one scholar who discusses psychoanalysis and Jewish identity its many. And we could mention that Keaton's clothes in the film had an impact on fashion in the late 1970s. You're making a complete hash of this situation and it's completely unnecessary.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 07:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede should include major points, not everything mentioned later. We only include the actors who play major roles, not supporting players. By your logic, apparently all the actors in the movie should also be named in the lede section in order to properly "summarize" the article. And the problem in the first instance is the Themes section. First we should correct that monstrosity, then turn our attention to the lead. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

===Proposal===
In trying to build consensus, how about, in addition to the lead's comments regarding that the movie is about the search for love, we incorporate Erik's suggestion: "... that academics have noted the contrast in the settings of New York City and Los Angeles, the stereotype of gender differences in sexuality, the presentation of Jewish identity, and the elements of psychoanalysis and modernism"? --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 04:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::'''Support'''Yup I'd be happy with that. Anybody else?♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 07:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:::'''Support''' I'd be happy with that too: it summarises a themes section that covers the aspects of the film that have been identified by numerous reliable sources. Although this may be, at face value, a love story, there are other important themes that the reliable sources have identified, and if we are to keep in line with [[WP:LEAD]], we need to reflect this. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 10:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:::'''Support''' That sounds good to me. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|Winkelvi]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span>  14:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Then we should also include the names of the entire cast, too. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 13:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see the sources on the idea that these are major themes. Can someone please find the writer who said that any of these matters are major themes of the film? --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:They are in the article, in the themes section, where everything is supported by reliable sources. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 14:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::Here you go: [http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/21348%7C0/Annie-Hall.html]. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|Winkelvi]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span>  15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

From Winkelvi's "support", the first sentence: "The 1977 Best Picture-winner continued a number of themes that Allen had approached in previous films such as Bananas (1971), Sleeper (1973) and Love and Death (1975), wry explorations of romantic angst buoyed by his emphasis on the comic pitfalls that crop up on the path to happiness." So that counts on my side of the question. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:Read the entire article link and you shall see that everyone's view here is supported.  There is more than one major theme in the film.  Allen has never been superficial in his screenwriting.  There is always more than one major theme in his films.  Annie Hall is no exception. You wanted a reliable source that supports views on this other than you own and I provided it.  To cherry pick quotes is unhelpful and dishonest. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|Winkelvi]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span>  16:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::No, it doesn't. Offer the quotes that you claim support your view. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:::I would urge everyone commenting here to [http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/21348%7C0/Annie-Hall.html read the article] that Winkelvi claims supports the proposal. Apparently it's his very best effort to find a source that says there are other major themes besides love and relationships. There is nothing in it about academics, New York, Los Angeles, stereotypes, sexuality, Jewish identity, psychoanalysis or modernism. In fact, none of these words even appear in the article. Yet Winkelvi claims this supports the proposal. Amazing! --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

'''Roger Ebert''': "one of the problems he keeps providing for himself is the '''problem of love'''. He falls in love too easily, to girls who are right for him in all the little ways and incompatible in all the big ones. His girls tend to reflect the stages he's going through. When he's an Adlai Stevenson liberal in the late 1950s, he marries another one. When he's a romantic ten or fifteen years later, he finds another one, a kookier one. His only trouble is that women are people, not stages. 

The movie dares to go into this material a little more seriously and cohesively than is usually the case in an Allen film. Annie Hall is a comedy, yes, and there are moments in it as funny as anything Woody has done, but the movie represents a growth on Allen's part. From a filmmaker who would do anything for a laugh, whose primary mission seemed to be to get through the next five minutes, Allen has developed in Sleeper, Love and Death, and this film into a much more thoughtful and (is it possible?) more mature director." --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

'''Vincent Canby''': " "Annie Hall," '''a comedy about urban love''' and incompatibility" --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

'''Joseph McBride''': "In his idiosyncratic, comic terms, what Allen is attempting here is not so much different from what his favorite director, Ingmar Bergman, did in “Scenes From A Marriage.” This film could be called “'''Scenes From A Relationship'''.” Allen and Keaton go through just about all the emotional changes one could expect from an intelligent contemporary couple, only in this case the anguish is masked by the surface bravery of Allen’s wisecracking and Keaton’s deft retorts."

:Not sure how this was deleted in the last posting, but I'll repeat: - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 14:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::Yes, and other sources identify other themes. No one is denying that one of the themes is love, but there are others too. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 14:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:::You have no source to back the idea that something else is a major theme? I am not surprised. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::::As per the above, there are sources in the article, and please keep the snarkiness out of your comments: it's not helpful to anyone. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::Still have no sources to support the idea that something else is a major theme? When will you give us the sources that say these other things are major themes? --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

'''Tim Radford''': "A film which sticks close to the cutting edge of '''love''', and darts about daringly '''trying to make philosophical sense of''' it, is bound to be flawed. This one is, because Allen tried to do in 93 minutes what Proust needed 11 volumes for: to resolve life, love and the passing of both." --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

TV Guide: "Seminal, hilarious look at contemporary relationships." --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 14:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the proposal. The lead should summarize the body of the article. It is of course a romantic comedy about a failed relationship, as stated early in the lead. The body also includes several long paragraphs on Themes: Location, Sexuality and Jewish identity, Psychoanalysis and modernism. These have well-sourced content. The themes should also be mentioned in the lead. I think the proposed addition will clear the article for GA. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 14:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that identify those other themes as major? Or are you saying that each and every minor point no matter how trivial should be mentioned again in the lead section? In that case, I expect you to support a proposal to include the entire cast list in the lead. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 15:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

'''Penelope Gilliatt''': "Annie Hall goes further than any other Woody Allen film in the purity of its romanticism. '''This is a love story''' told with piercing sweetness and grief, for all its funniness." --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 15:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Yes it is a love story, but it also has some very notable "motifs" like psychoanalysis and Jewish identity which are ''widely'' discussed by ''notable'' film scholars. Just look in google books. These are valuable components of the article and the lead should at least summarize in a line what scholars go into hundreds of pages about over many books. All we need is to rename the Themes section Critical analysis to avoid implying all are equal "themes". ♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Motifs are not themes, so I agree. Your claim that these secondary matters are widely discussed should be supported with sources. Please provide the many sources. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Too many sources to list here but the sources are in the themes section and the lead doesn't need sourcing.  Demonstrate multiple reliable sources which discusses these motifs are important to the film? Peruse the various hits: [https://www.google.com/search?q=Psychoanalysis&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=Annie+Hall+gender&tbm=bks Gender], [https://www.google.com/search?q=Psychoanalysis&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=Psychoanalysis+Annie+Hall&tbm=bks Psychoanalysis], [https://www.google.com/search?q=Psychoanalysis&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=Annie+Hall+Jewish&tbm=bks Jewish], [https://www.google.com/search?q=Psychoanalysis&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=neurotic+Annie+Hall&tbm=bks Neuroticism] etc. In fact most sources I found in google books about Annie Hall mention one or more of these issues more than they do actually discussing the filming of the movie or its success. ♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 16:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:Not too many to list here. I notice one was a high school study guide anonymously authored. Another was SparkNotes? Rather weak when I'm citing major publications. As I have been saying, the Themes section is badly butchered, with weak sourcing and distinct lack of understanding about the difference between theme, motif, symbol and trope. That should be rewritten before the lead is infected with the same inferior material. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::Weak??? There's enough reliable scholarly material in those links to sink a battleship!! Themes is only "badly butchered" according to you because you didn't write it, and Ring Cinema is He-Man, Master of the Universe. Everybody else is always wrong and he's always right, the jedi master and Ring wraith/Sauron of world cinema. How dare lesser mortals interfere with the great one.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::You are offering film reviews. Others are offing more academic sources. Both play to different readerships and we balance the two. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 16:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::{{ec}} Ring Cinema, why can we not call the section "Critical analysis"? We would not be saying that these sub-topics are themes per se. They are instead parts of the film that have been critically analyzed by academics. This way, we can identify this set of sub-topics more accurately. If it needs rewriting (and I agree about replacing Spark Notes with something better), that still does not negate entirely the parts mentioned in the proposed sentence above. [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 16:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
We should rewrite the Themes section first. That is for sure. After that, let's decide if we want to include the entire cast in the lead section. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:::I didn't add the Spark Notes source, I agree the name doesn't sound great but look in the google links I provided. That isn't trivial coverage is it Erik? All we'd need to do is replace the section title with "Critical analysis" and then immediately we don't confuse motifs and symbols and themes etc.. There's nothing wrong with the content in that section.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 16:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::You are relying on a high school study guide with no author. Again, which six sources support your view? I'm still interested to know on whom you rely. Name your sources and quote them as I have done. If you can't, perhaps you and Winkelvi are both claiming there is support where there is none. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, '''I'm ''' not relying on a high school study guide. I didn't add that source and content supported by it. Check the article history. That source was there before I edited it and ''you'' edited it for years and didn't remove it. I only added decent book sources. I don't have to mention sources here. They're in the article which is a jolly sight better than it was before I edited it.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 16:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:I listed six sources and quoted a key passage from each. Winkelvi contributed a seventh. None of the proponents of this proposal have cited a single source to support their view. You claim there are many sources but have mentioned none. You disavow the source that was practically plagiarized for the Themes section. Winkelvi claimed he had a source but he couldn't even find a source that mentioned in passing these other themes. So it is really looking like there is no support for the proposal from any source at all. Do you have 7? I have 7. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 16:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about and I can see you're not the sort in which discussion resolves issues. Any decent editor reading this and seeing the article can see that it's well-sourced and you have little argument for anything other than changing the section title to Critical Analysis.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 17:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::*This seems a very one-sided argument, where {{u|Ring Cinema}} is disagreeing with everyone else. The section on "Themes" is quite long, a significant part of the total article, and is well-sourced (references 35-53). It should therefore be summarized in the lead. Renaming it "Critical analysis" would not affect that. If {{u|Ring Cinema}} can gain consensus for removing this section, then of course it does not need to be summarized in the lead. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 16:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:::And proportionately the length of the themes section is proportionate to what is documented in reliable books covering the film and that's the way it should be of course.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 17:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

===cont d===
::::Wikipedia is supposed to follow sources and the lede section isn't a place to mention every minor point that is made anywhere in the article. Perhaps those who have supported the proposal should reconsider in light of the discussion. Just as we don't include the entire cast in the lead section, we don't need to include every single minor point in the Themes section. As the sources say, there is one major theme (the nature of love), just as there are two major stars (Hall and Keaton). So, if there are sources that support the view that something besides love is a major theme, they should definitely be mentioned at this time. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::Already been done above: [https://www.google.com/search?q=Psychoanalysis&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=Annie+Hall+gender&tbm=bks Gender], [https://www.google.com/search?q=Psychoanalysis&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=Psychoanalysis+Annie+Hall&tbm=bks Psychoanalysis], [https://www.google.com/search?q=Psychoanalysis&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=Annie+Hall+Jewish&tbm=bks Jewish], [https://www.google.com/search?q=Psychoanalysis&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=neurotic+Annie+Hall&tbm=bks Neuroticism],  let alone the large number in the article. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 17:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And it's not as if you have a clear cut case Ring for saying they're not themes, I suggest you check out [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FpEAaYF0jqEC&pg=PA34&dq=Psychoanalysis+Annie+Hall&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ADojU82sB8WnhAfE44CQCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Psychoanalysis%20Annie%20Hall&f=false this source] which says '''Critics have pointed out the extent to which Freud and psychoanalysis are "a perennial theme" in Annie Hall'''. Theme, not motif. That source proves you're ''wrong''. Author Mary P. Nicholls is a professor and specialist in politics and film at the Department of Political Science, [[Baylor University]], hardly a high school student. '''The perennial theme of Freud and psychoanalysis in Annie Hall constitutes a self-conscious assertion of how humor''' by [[Sam B. Girgus]] [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GZbcl1o3kOQC&pg=PA50&dq=Annie+Hall++theme&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vjsjU5y7IMOohAelyIDYCA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Annie%20Hall%20%20theme&f=false here] '''Jewish/Gentile relations serve as the work's theme''' [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-v2Di_5ShGMC&pg=PA328&dq=Annie+Hall+jewish+theme&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UzsjU5u9K8WAhAes8YCICA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Annie%20Hall%20jewish%20theme&f=false here]. Not just described as theme but '''perennial''' theme. I suggest we leave the themes section as it is and simply add Rosie's sentencing to the lead and try to replace that Spark Notes source which does look a bit dodgy granted.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 17:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::'''Support''' Anything significant in the article should be summarized in the lead. <small><span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Lady Lotus|LADY LOTUS]]</span> • <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User talk:Lady Lotus|TALK]]</span></small> 17:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Where is the evidence these minor themes are significant? Be specific. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 17:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::She doesn't need to be specific, the truckloads of sources indicating they're important themes to the movie are right in front of your eyes above!! '''Perennial''' theme, not '''minor''' theme!!! Here's further proof "Annie Hall was Allen's breakthrough film. It introduced, for the first time in a serious manner, many of the most '''important''' philosophical themes that would concern Allen throughout the next two decades. These themes include the following:" Check out [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XEXck6-GreQC&pg=PA35&dq=Annie+Hall+important+theme&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fD8jU9TvGcaohAfL9YDwCg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Annie%20Hall%20important%20theme&f=false this]. All cited as '''important''' not minor!! When are you going to admit fault? ♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 17:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Anything that has significant coverage in the article (in any article), should be in the lead to summarize the article, it's what it's there for. <small><span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Lady Lotus|LADY LOTUS]]</span> • <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User talk:Lady Lotus|TALK]]</span></small> 17:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you are misstating my view, Blofeld. Do we include the entire cast in the lede section? No, we include only the major stars. Okay, what are the major themes of this movie? Let's go to the sources on that. Finally, proponents have offered some sources to answer my 7. We can review the evidence now to see if it holds up. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 17:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::We could mention that the film co stars a few people and mention names but the film is really centred around Woody and Diane, or would you dispute that too? ♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 17:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that obviously. Just as we put the major stars in the lede, we put the major themes in the lede. Not every last theme anyone ever thought of. The major themes. And in this case it's easy to see what they are. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

*Let's keep this simple. Each section in the body of any article should be covered to some extent in the lead. The sections describe significant aspects of the subject. This proposal is for minimal coverage, basically just the section titles. The question of whether the sections are relevant, well-sourced, correctly named etc. is separate. If the topics exist as sections in the body, they belong in the lead. Removing or reworking the sections should be a separate discussion. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 17:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::Not true. We don't put the entire cast in the lede section, we list the major stars. Should we mention every single point made anywhere in the article in the lede? No, of course not. Now, how do we differentiate the major themes from the minor? Consult the sources, as we do on Wikipedia. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 18:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the first source on Gender listed above. I don't see where this author lists this as even a theme, much less a major theme. Please quote something that author says that indicates this is a major theme of the film . Not a major theme of her piece, but a major theme of the film Annie Hall. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

From the selection on psychoanalysis, a reader writes "His insight seems deep since he presents many theories in psychoanalysis and feminism. But I think those barely have connections with Allen's films." --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 18:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L2YgivlXooIC&pg=PA137&dq=Annie+Hall+Gender+theme&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RFIjU_jWAc6UhQevmoH4CQ&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Annie%20Hall%20Gender%20theme&f=false It is a theme]. That's all that matters.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 19:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The selection from American Jewish Filmmakers does not say that Judaism is a major theme, only mentioning that it is concerned with several American Jewish issues. Of course, Singer's Jewishness is found throughout the film because he is Jewish. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 19:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::It's obvious. Jewish identity and being an outsider is clearly a notable theme of the film. I need say no more. That you still dispute this given the wealth of sources I've demonstrated above shows your true colours on this and you've made it very clear that no reasoning with you will change your mind. Well tough luck, because any decent editor here who wants to see wikipedia improve and important articles promoted to GA are unlikely to support your outlook. I suggest you stop trying to wrong a right and go improve ''Chinatown'' which I see you've begun on, that would be more worth your time and effort. You're embarrassing yourself continuing to dispute this.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 19:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:Not only is it not obvious, it's wrong. But you are not the one to say, Blofeld, any more than it is my role to say that it isn't. We should go by the sources. I'm definitely interested in improving this article, that's why I'm trying to keep the nonsense of the Themes section to a minimum.

:I haven't read anyone except for Michael Tueth make a case that neuroticism is a theme of any kind, and I'm not sure from what he's written that he would agree that's what he's saying. He seems to say that it is a "neurotic comedy" and refers to neurosis as a "motif" (p. 141). He seems to support the idea that love is a major theme when he quotes approvingly from Julian Fox (apparently): "The film notes that sexual attraction fades, people have serial romancees, Alvy himself has two failed marriages, Annie loses interest in sex and cannot relax without taking marijuana, puts Alvy off, or, giving in, endures the act by detaching her attention. The film's bravery in confronting the realities of modern love culminates in its ending, which insists that the couple, though meeting again and enjoying each other's company, does not ultimately reform." --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 19:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you're not interested in improving the article then because on the weight of the sources you'd not dismiss what is currently written in the themes section as nonsense. The article would degrade by removing it, anybody here aside from yourself can see that it's a legitimate section which deserves at the very least to have one sentence summarizing it in the lead.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 19:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

*Agreed. The question is, "Should the lead summarize the article?" and the answer of course is yes. @{{u|Ring Cinema}}: Since you think the Themes section is "nonsense" you may want to improve it. But since you are the only one with that view, first get consensus on your proposed changes in a new section on this page. In the meanwhile, the lead should summarize the article, including the lengthy section on Themes. The reason is not that the section on Themes is well sourced and covers an important aspect of the subject. The reason is that it is a large part of the article. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 20:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Yeah but in saying that Ring would simply chop the themes section back to a short paragraph just so it wouldn't have to mentioned in the lead. What he's trying to argue I think is that the themes section shouldn't be pretty long and informative and should be short just mentioning love so as a result the lead wouldn't need to mention it. That's not right. The weight of coverage in that article as it is is reflective of the weight of coverage of the issues in books. Most books documenting Amnie Hall in fact talk about those themes/issues whatever more than actual production of the film.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 20:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:::*I agree that "themes" deserves significant coverage. This is more than a simply romantic comedy about people falling into and out of love. Those are a dime a dozen. The movie is enriched by the other themes that run through it: notably Allen's musings on Brooklyn Jewish angst and neurosis illustrated by the contrast between the two characters. I would resist efforts to strip it down and remove well-sourced content on relevant aspects. But that should be discussed in a different section. This one is about whether the lead should include a summary of this section as it is now. There is consensus that it should. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 20:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Blofeld, your attempts to predict my views are offensive to your mental capacity. I'm going to ask you to apologize and not repeat your obvious error again. I'll respond after you get that accomplished. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 21:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
And I'm still waiting for an apology for the socking accusation, but I'm not clamouring for it because it's not constructive to reaching agreement on the lead or themes section, so perhaps if wod be better if we all focused on that instead? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 21:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:No, Blofeld can apologize now. It's not the first time. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 21:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::I'm not after an apology (little vhance, and it means nothing), but my comment was designed more to focus discussion on the more pertinent mRters in hand. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 21:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Aymatth2, I agree with you that Themes should be well covered. My objection here is not that the material in Themes should be out, simply that it's relatively unimportant for the lede. As I've mentioned before, the word 'theme' has more than one use, conflated in this article and poorly organized. Theme can mean 'main idea', 'motif', 'trope', etc. That's why Erik is suggesting we separate them into more specific categories, which is sensible. It is really very clear what the main theme of the film is. The evidence is before us. Now, if you want to contribute to making better sense of it in the article, that would be great for the article. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 21:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

===Post-protection===
I see fairly strong consensus (though not unanimity) above for the addition of the sentence proposed by Erik to the lead section. There has been less discussion of the placement of the "Casting" section, but for now there is a weaker consensus to leave it at its current location as a subsection of Production. The content of the Themes section has been raised in the section by Aymatth2 below and should continue to be discussed there. For the moment, I am going to unprotect the article and add Erik's sentence to the lead.
All that said: if I see further edit-warring here, and/or a continuation of the personalization, accusations, and attacks above, I am far more likely to consider blocks as an option alongside or even instead of protection, depending on circumstances. If you disagree with my reading of the above, or simply feel more opinions are needed, I would encourage you to open a [[WP:RFC|RFC]] on the issue or pursue some other form of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. Of course you should also discuss concerns and proposals here, particularly for the issue raised below. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 01:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)