Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:34, 10 June 2003

Removed this sentence:

If moving pictures were not an American invention, they have nonetheless been the preeminent American contribution to world entertainment.

According to the linked page Film, moving pictures are an American invention. What's the true story here? Rmhermen 22:14 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself, but that was what the us government article said. It did not elaborate and I haven't had a chance to check it out. Sfmontyo

According to http://www.cinescene.com/dash/lumiere.html, it was a french man, Lumiere, and his two sons (in Lyons), who having been inspired by Thomas Edison's Kinetoscope, had invented a process of moving a filmstrip and projecting it onto a screen. Sfmontyo

Finally, according to this article, http://animation.filmtv.ucla.edu/program/before.html, others had a system of projecting images onto the wall, including Edison's personal system (not his public Kinetoscope), but it would appear that the sprocketed film coordinated with a shutter was the design of the french man Louis Lumiere. Sfmontyo

This title is ludicrous. It sounds like it's about movies ABOUT the United States. Avoiding the use of the adjective "American" is nonsense. -- Zoe

Okay Zoe, first I'm glad that you don't mince words and I've seen enough posts from you that I don't take this personally, but I'd appreciate it if you would be a little nicer. Anyway, here's my rationale, in the beginning, there was Culture of the United States and Music of the United States (as well as things like Politics of the United States which I think is a bit odd). So in the interest of keeping it similar to the other half-dozen to dozen _______ of the United States, I added Literature of the United States, Dance of the United States, Architecture of the United States, Visual arts of the United States. (BTW: I didnot use Film of the United States, because that literally sounded like it was a film about the US). Anyway, are you suggesting that we:

1. ) special case just this entry
2. ) change all of the entries

Again, I was simply trying to go along with what I preceived was the spirit of the articles. Cheers, Sfmontyo 02:16 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

How about this title: Movies made in the United States - Sfmontyo Actually, I don't like that either. Any suggestions?

I understand what you're saying, and I apologize for the tone, but the thing is that around here, the word "American" has become a dirty word, and I was reacting to that. I still think the title is wrong, but then, what do I know, I'm just one of those Unitestatesians who have stolen the name that belongs to everyone in the Western Hemisphere. -- Zoe

It seems to me that the title is perfectly fine, and I, for one, wasn't confused at all. The rationale given above is perfect, I think. Let it stay as it is. Atorpen

Having read the above justification, I think the title is perfectly correct and logical. I will others would show the same logic sometimes in naming articles. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:03 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

But JT, you're not an imperialist warmongering Unitedstatesian. -- Zoe

Oops, I wanted to move Film history/France, Film history/Italy and Film history/United States out of subpages and I put them at Cinema of France, Cinema of Italy and Cinema of the United States, not knowing a discussion had already come up. I like my way better, because movies of the United States sounds strange to me, but I don't feel strongly. If someone wants to integrate the two articles here, there or somewhere in between, that's fine. Tuf-Kat 16:34 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)