Talk:Biograph Company/Archive 1

(American Mutoscope and Biograph Article)Tagged for cleanup and as unreferenced[edit]

This article needs external references and at a minimum, split down into an introduction and sections. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many "citation needed" notes were added where citations already existed in the article. I prefer to place citations at the end of sentences, not in the middle of sentences unless necessary. For instance, the fact that Classmates was the first feature released by Biograph, and that it was released in February 1914, can be found in The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures, volume F1, which is already cited at the end of the sentence. — Walloon 00:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With your citations and general cleanup, the article now looks to be in much better shape. I've removed the cleanup tag. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the article is not under "Cleanup" now, but I found a couple of minor misquotes and inaccuracies.

1. On ref#3, I inserted the exact quote from the webpage that it quotes from.

2. Where it talks about Selig Polyscope, I came across the book

Biograph Bulletins, 1895-1908 pp 262 Published by film historian Kemp Niver 1971, Locare Research Group

I couldn't add the link to the "References" section, maybe one of you can.

Thanks DanP

The new company is not a revival of the old company, despite what the new company would like to claim. It has the same name, but no transfer of title, trademarks, stock, physical assets, real estate, or intellectual property was involved. The new company took a trademark (the "AB" in a circle) that had fallen into the public domain from disuse, and registered it as their own. The old Biograph was made a division of Consolidated Film Industries in 1928, and CFI is still in business. As for Selig Polyscope, it's not clear what you are disputing. Are you saying that Selig did not make movies in the Los Angeles area in 1908-1909, or that they did not open a studio in Los Angeles in 1909? — Walloon 21:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more headings to break up the text, please feel free to move or change them. -Will Beback 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the first line, where in a reference does it state the new company was formed in 1987? Just confused here, because the website doesn't state that.

In the second, I'm not disputing anything about Selig making films on those dates. I found reference that said Biograph had been in Los angeles in 1906 prior to any known motion picture company, and this appeared in the Biograph Bulletins book, published in 1971.

Third, just for my own knowledge, is there any other reference that CFI owns the old Biograph company? Just for my own edification.

On the trademarks and all that, I am not an attorney and can't give any opinions, I am involved mainly in history.

Also, do you know who originally posted the article the first time, and how long it has been up?

Thanks,

DanP:)

The original version of the article was posted on 29 November 2004 by AndyL, using information from the new company's website. As for the 1987 date, follow the link to the company's website, and you'll find, "In 1987 the company and its trademark(s) were revived . . . " On CFI's ownership of Biograph, I will contact CFI's legal department for more information. — Walloon 22:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question on adding information on the old company. I supplied a reference stated above about the company being in LA in 1906 with verified reference and it has still not been posted. I confirmed this again in the book mentioned. I am really getting a spooky feeling about this. When I have time I am going to re-edit and include the verified information. I am currently investigating other film related articles as well, but this is getting weird. Any wiki-editors please let me know which way to go here. I was under the impression anyone can add verifiable information.

Thanks,

DanP:)

Your information has been included in footnote #10. — Walloon 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate status[edit]

If it is relevant that the new AM&B was incorporated in California in 1991, it is equally relevant that California has now suspended its corporate status. There can be few more relevant facts about a corporation than whether it still legally exists as a corporation. — Walloon 02:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly if anyone has different, reliable information about the current status of the organization they should include it here. But it is inappropriate to simply delete information without comment. Until there is an explanation, or new information, the material will keep being re-added. -Will Beback 06:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Information[edit]

I was in a hurry and forgot to post this. I made minor corrections on information in this article so that the Biograph Studios correct information matched the information on this article. From time to time I will be adding links and doing articles on the founders, actors, etc. Thanks to all the editors.

--Roger the red 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All printed evidence (and I've supplied it) says that CFI acquired the Biograph Company itself, not just its labs and studio (which were owned by Empire Trust Company). You still haven't provided evidence of your claim that CFI acquired only the Biograph studio and labs. As it is now, the article has footnotes with sources that contradict statements made in the body of the article. Unless you provide the evidence to back up your claim, the article will be reverted to state that CFI acquired the entire Biograph Company. — Walloon 23:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walloon; I don't want to waste anyones time, nor stay on a subject that is nothing more than merely a paragraph in history. However, we do need to make sure things are correct. In response to your statement(s) the evidence of CFI acquiring only the Biograph studio and labs is in all the references. All information supplied shows the studio/laboratory facilites were acquired by CFI after the acquisition from Empire Trust cCmpany (Except for the footnote in Tuska's book)and no mention of transference of intellectual/real properties from the actual company, only the studio/laboratory facilities itself that were purchased. I supplied the information and utilized your references as well, including the New York Times and Jon Tuska's book.

I will insert all the items of reference again:

(a) The last trade of Biograph stock was reported by The New York Times on December 27, 1928, p. 39. (No transference of Biograph Company properties, intellectual or otherwise, or any mention of intellectual or real property transference to CFI.)

(b) "Screen News Here and in Hollywood", The New York Times, September 27, 1939, p. 29. Empire Trust Company, one of Biograph's creditors, had acquired the Bronx Studio, but retained Biograph to manage it. (Again, in italics, mentions "Bronx Studio" nothing of any acquisition or transference of properties from company).

(c)Jon Tuska's book; The Vanishing Legion: A History of Mascot Pictures, 1927-1935, 42, Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0786407492. (This mention of "Biograph" in the book was explained to me by the Author).

Again, no records indicating any kind of transference of intellectual and or real properties. The only items mentioned were the actual studio and laboratory facilities. On the clariification of Tuska's book, would I need to call him again and get a letter from him stating what he told me. Also, on your end, a verification of transfer of ownership or merging of intellectual properties , real properties etc. from the old company itself to CFI is needed (This is of course excluding the actual studio/laboratories which were purchased by CFI).

If we can find that the actual company was transferred, or transference of intellectual/real properties to CFI, then there is no problem (And, I have no problem) in changing it back to your original version. On another note, unfortunately, I do not have alot of time, the lecture circuit has been busy, so I cannot give full attention to Wikipedia on a daily basis. But, I will be checking in as frequently as possible, so we can take time on this small subject. Again, I am interested more in old studio facilities than this article.

Thanks,

--Roger the red 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make small mention of an edit I did to this article, as well as editing other film companies articles. Not just their history, I am now interested in content as well. I was informed by editor Dpbsmith of certain Wikipedia policies that I was actually unaware of. He stated "According to longstanding policy, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not for promoting forthcoming media releases. The material should not be reinserted until sources meeting WP:RS can be cited that show that the product a) exists, b) has received enough mainstream press coverage to establish notability, and c) can be clearly connected to the 'Subject' itself". On a side note, strangely, I found this "Promotion" all over Wikipedia, unchallenged (Which I will be working on). Continuing, this is why the editor Dpbsmith removed the reference to Wireless Mutoscopes since the editor claimed it was a "Future" reference, and only one press release for reference. Because of this, I researched the Biograph article to see anything else, and found an inclusion on "Biograph on the Moon", which 1) No link to the "Biograph Moon" inclusion, 2)It was used as a "Crystal Ball" to portray and promote something forthcoming, and 3) has received not enough mainstream press coverage to establish notability. Therefore I deleted it. However, the inclusion was republished with an archived link. I just need assistance, because this confuses me, is contradicting to what Dpbsmith stated, and the longhstanding WP:RS Wikipedia policies. I will investigate and contact Wikipedia, but any other help by any of the editors is greatly appreciated. Thanks, --Roger the red 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "In 2003, Biograph announced that it had acquired title to 1,777 acres on the Moon for use as a filming location, and Thomas R. Bond II stated that he planned to start filming there by 2008" probably can be deleted. Assuming you take it at face value, the acquisition of lunar real estate took place in 2003 and is thus not "crystal ball" territory. Strictly speaking the plans to start production there in 2008 are a statement made by Bond in 2003. But the point is that none of these plans are important enough to have been described in 2003 in any reliable source. The source given is just Biograph's own press release, which doesn't meet the reliable source guidelines.

I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Small office" is relevant[edit]

Los Angeles Downtown News quotes "CEO Thomas Bond" as saying "the small office would serve as the headquarters for the company." Not only does the LA Downtown News characterize this as a "small office," but they quote the CEO as characterizing it as a "small office." This is important in presenting a neutral view of the revived company, which has grandiose plans for studios on the Moon, etc. but as of 2006 appears to be a very small operation. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of assets[edit]

I have deleted the following:

The company was revived in 1991 but it is not clear if there was a complete sale of all the assets of the company.

Actually, it is very clear. Not only was there not a "complete sale" of "all the assets", there was no sale of assets — because there were no assets to transfer, as the article says. All of Biograph's film copyrights expired by the 1940s, were not renewed, and entered the public domain (yes, I have researched this, check the footnotes to the article). Biograph Studios donated its film collection to the Museum of Modern Art circa 1939.[1] (See: Iris Barry, "Why Wait for Posterity?" Hollywood Quarterly, 1945/46, pp. 131-137.) All of Biograph's registered trademarks expired by the 1940s out of abandonment (nonuse). The Los Angeles studio was sold circa 1917, and the Bronx studio was sold and resold several times since it was shuttered in 1939, and burned down in 1980. — Walloon 01:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator[edit]

I had asked for assistance from Wikipedia administrator Samuel Wantman to help go by Wikipedia guidelines and edit the article. You have again changed and reverted the article back. Reverting this many times can intitiate a 3RR action. Because of the difficulty I may not be editing on this article for awhile, but working on ohters since there is an obvious bias. This has been forwarded to the administrator.

--Roger the red 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, Walloon has not done anything unusual that I notice. He removed something with citations that back up his statements. If you think it is unclear that there was a complete sale of assets of the company, you should find a citation that backs up that statement. You should be talking with Walloon on this page to sort this out. It is not the role of administrators to be the arbiters of truth. I have no knowledge about this subject. My view is that I see editors working in good faith to improve this article. What I don't see is your effort to discuss this with Walloon. It is very normal for things to be removed from articles because they are uncited and contradict other information. When this happens, and you think the removal is in error, consider it a challenge to find a source that corroborates the information that was removed. If you find the source return the material with a citation. -- Samuel Wantman 01:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, thank you for your time and input. I am concentrating on another article at the moment, but I will do just that. I also will put the article up for peer review. By this, others as well can join in with thier input, which will free me to do other things. Also, what citations and references will be valid, and acceptable to Wikipedia policies? If I find a legitimate, verifiable citation and that is removed as well, let me know the next step is on what to do. I understand you must be neutral, and I appreciate the guidance you have given me.

--Roger the red 02:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Peer Review[edit]

After consultations with other editors, we have decided to put the article up for peer review. I also neeed to devote more time to other older silent film companies. T

The editor "Walloon" posed a couple of informative references that need to be clarified. the below is part of that posting, along with the questions at hand.

1. "Actually, it is very clear. Not only was there not a "complete sale" of "all the assets", there was no sale of assets — because there were no assets to transfer, as the article says." *1.

1. Please quote the article which states (i.e. "because there were no assets to transfer".

- 2. "Biograph Studios donated its film collection to the Museum of Modern Art circa 1939.[1] (See: Iris Barry, "Why Wait for Posterity?" Hollywood Quarterly, 1945/46, pp. 131-137.)" **2.

- 2. Please clarify how Biograph Studios donated the film collection to the Museum of Modern Art in 1939 when the company went out of business in 1928?

- 2. "The last trade of Biograph stock was reported by The New York Times on December 27, 1928, p. 39."

I invite All editors for thier input and information.

Thanks,

--Roger the red 03:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowehere in the current article does it say that the Biograph Company went out of business in 1928. If you'll look back on the history of the article and the discussion page for the Biograph Studios article, you'll see that I am the person who kept insisting that the Biography Company did NOT go out of business in 1928, and you, Roger the Red, were the one who kept insisting that it DID go out of business in 1928. I quoted a New York Times article (September 27, 1939, p. 29) that said,

The Biograph Studio in the Bronx will suspend operations on Saturday, it was learned yesterday. . . . The studio, which is owned by the Empire Trust Company, has been operated for seven years by Biograph, a subsidiary of Consolidated Film Industries, Inc.

You objected to that. I quoted from the book The Vanishing Legion: A History of Mascot Pictures, 1927-1935 (p. 42) that Herbert Yates' Consolidated Film Industries gained a majority interest in the Biograph Company in 1928, and you objected to that too. The Wikipedia article as it is currently worded reflects your changes,

When the Biograph Company fell on financial hard times, the studio facilites were acquired by one of Biograph Company's creditors, the Empire Trust Company, although Biograph Company continued to manage the studio Herbert Yates acquired the Biograph Company Studios and Film laboratory facilities in 1928. Biograph Studios in the Bronx was made a subsidiary of his Consolidated Film Industries in 1928.

The films remained at Biograph Studio in the Bronx from 1913 to 1939. When the Bronx studio was closed in 1939, the films were donated to the MOMA. The article and its footnotes DO explain what became of the company's principal assets: (1) films, (2) copyrights, (3) Bronx studio (4) film lab. I admit that the article does not currently explain what became of the company's registered trademarks (as state above, expired in the '40s) or the Los Angeles studio (as stated above, sold circa 1917). I can easily add that additional info to the article. — Walloon 06:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless content: does it exist yet?[edit]

I am thinking that the material about the release of new and historical mutoscope films for viewing on cell phones ought to be deleted on the principle that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Biograph company's own site, http://www.biographcompany.com/wireless/wireless.html , says "Biograph will soon offer the newest cutting edge content" (emphasis supplied).

Admittedly the next sentence seems to contradict this by saying "you now can download short films called "Mutoscopes" from your local wireless carrier," but unless someone cares to give a verifiable source citation for the cell carriers offering them and a list of the titles offered, I am skeptical.

I think this is another effort at promotion (much like the claim that Biograph has leased land on the Moon and will be producing a film there in 2007).

I am going to delete this material in a week or so unless someone provides good evidence (meeting the verifiability policy) that the new content has actually been produced and that Mutoscope titles for use on cell phones actually available for purchase now. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Actually, I had deleted any reference to that already in the "Mutoscope" article. I also contacted Strom-Magallon Entertainment, and they do have a legal distribution contract with American Mutoscope and Biograph Company for new "Mutoscopes". From my research, four have been produced and viewed, so there is actual verification that it is actually a done deal, unlike speculation on the "Moon" lot, which is definately presumption. On this note, any editors with any questions can leave messages. If this is the case, then it needs to be included on this page as well as the "Mutoscope" article.

Also a change of subject, on my own "Talk" page, none of the other so-called "Old" film companies have been refrenced, cited, or questioned on validity, only the word of the film companies. This needs to stop. ALL film company articles need to be edited with the same scrutiny as this one. So, I impore the help of all editors to help me with this.

Thanks,

--Roger the red 20:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the titles of the four films? From which wireless companies can they be downloaded? "Verifiable" doesn't mean that an editor asserts that he's checked it. It means you can produce a source citation.

If you've noticed film company articles that lack references you should tag them with the {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} tag. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Roger the red 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscelaneous[edit]

This is a very low budget play which hoped to leverage a very old name into some mega funding. There is zero relationship between the original Biograph and this business. Although the website claims to have "licensed" the old Biograph library to the Library of Congress for "non-profit" use, it all fell into the public domain decades ago. The bit about a motion picture lot on the moon is transparent, meaningless hype: International law doesn't support the private control of property on the moon. Moreover, the dates the company claimed for putting a camera on the moon have come and gone (no surprise). Gwen Gale 09:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have been busy on othe projects but did happen to peruse this information, but happen to come across this again, and could not help but input. Although all valid contributions are welcome, the above statement is mainly an opinion rather than a verifiable fact. This is fine for the discussion page, but not for inclusion in the actual article. I am refering to the statement "This is a very low budget play which hoped to leverage a very old name into some mega funding." and..."The bit about a motion picture lot on the moon is transparent, meaningless hype" Again, an opinion, no matter if the claim is valid or invaild. I strive to keep neutrality as much as possible. As far as the "Old Downtowner" news article, it was changed and paraphrased in which I reverted it back to what the article actually said. If a quote is made, it has to be acurate and word for word. Also, this was posted in the "Wirelss Entertainment" discussion, rather then the GENERAL article discussion. On a funny note, yes the moon item is "Out there" but what is humorous as well is the artcile states that a camera will be on the moon in 2008, which your response was "the dates the company claimed for putting a camera on the moon have come and gone (no surprise).". I didn't know it was 2009 yet? Just adding to an already ridiculous heated argument. --Roger the red 03:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 'New Company' section "...started a new business using the old company's name. The company was incorporated in California in 1991.[19]" is a repeat of what is stated in the first main part of the article "...A new company with the same name was incorporated in California in 1991.[3]" therefore the former deleted. Things like that is what makes a 'Bad' quality story, rated "B".

--Roger the red 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repetative correction; statement in the "'New Company'" section "...but does not hold title to Biograph's historic film library or its trademarks, which either fell into the public domain or lapsed decades ago. is stated already in footnotes "16. ...The last of the Biograph film copyrights expired in 1945, without any of them having been renewed for a second term. Hurst, Walter E. (1992-1994). Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain. Hollywood, Cal.: Hollywood Film Archive." henceforth deleted. Also, from time to time "Unfreferenced tags will be used to help upgrade article.

--Roger the red 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now editing myself for repetition. So I will not be repetative, I have changed in "New Company" section "a new corporation" to "started the California corporation[19]" so it is not repetative with the inclusion at the top of the article which states "A new company with the same name started in 1991". Another "Oops!" I forgot to log in at the library when minor change was made. Hopefully now, there may be a glimmer of hope for this already moshed article.

--Roger the red 19:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to Editors[edit]

Prior to any changes in any articles, it is to be posted first in the "Discussion" page for discussion and review. Not doing so conflicts with "Wikipedia" policies and will be duly noted. --Roger the red 20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Protocol[edit]

Please adhere to Wikipedia policies and post your change "In" the discussion section of an article before making your change. --Roger the red 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On Article[edit]

On the "Biograph" article, which I am thouroghly sick of, there has to be a deletion of repetative material. This article is up for peer review as well as with Wiki-Film. It is acceptable to be clear but have everything in this article stated ONCE, not two, or three times. This is idiotic and makes the article look like a 3rd grade essay. Notice the "B" grading. There are also more references and citations in this one article than any other film article on Wikipedia. This is why I have a morbid curiosity on this. I have little time and on here very little, but when I am, I will make contributions. --Roger the red 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Additonal[edit]

I will also be going over "Citations" needed for verifiability. If there are one of each conflicting verifiable sources on inclusions, two corresponding citations must be verified that coincide with each other, or the inclusion will be deleted by me, all according to Wikipedia policies. Please feel free to add any comments to this discussion board or my own discussion board prior to any changes. --Roger the red 20:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over a week and no "Citation" or verifiable reference has been added to the article, (Section "New Company") where it states "...(Moreover, by 2006, whatever assets remained from the original Biograph would have been owned by Technicolor).[citation needed]. Therefore, it has ben removed. If a verifiable reference source or citation is found, then it will be accurately quoted and included.

--Roger the red 23:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Double Entries[edit]

I am not only briefly working on amiguous inclusions, but "Double Entires". First on the "Biograph article which states at top of article ">i>...A new company with the same name was incorporated in California in 1991.[3]". It also states in the "New Company" section "...started a new California corporation[19]" Both these go to the same reference point and are in all ways identical. In my next edit, I will be including only ONE entry, "'...started a new California corporation in 1991'" as all references should be. The "new" is included in the inclusion, as well as a correct reference to the corporation reference listing. --Roger the red 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to have some mention of the new company in the intro, whose purpose is to give an overview of the article. It needn't be identicalto what is below, but it would be unhelpful to omit it entirely. -Will Beback · † · 01:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then if it is to be there, it needs to refer to it as a corporation, since the reference link goes to the California corporations website. Also, at least it looks better in the article. I will go ahead and make this change and see if that is acceptable.

--Roger the red 03:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

I see you added some editing tags to American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. Can you specify on the talk what issues need addressing? Thanks, -Will Beback · † · 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been conflicting for a long while. I am inviting other editors (According to Wikipedia "Policy") to add any new information, and cite any new sources of information. Please refer to the "Talk" page". I am also adding a "Dispute" tag that references to the "Talk" page. New and established editors will be coming in and reviewing the article and its validity, disputes, etc.

Cheers! --Roger the red 02:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notices on Article

Unless there's an active discussion of the alleged POV issues, we should remove the POV tag. -Will Beback · † · 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion of "Neutrality" and it's just beginning, and will be up for review by other editors to review all of the archive talk pages and talk pages. I have also contacted Wikipedia directly on this matter and we are well within Wikipedia:Policy and the notice can remain there until all pages are reviewed by Wikipedians. If you have any other questions, please contact our advocate Tutmosis in which an AMA is open.

--Roger the red 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can say what is disputed I'll remove the tags. -Will Beback · † · 22:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement under Wikipedia policy for removal of tags if one editor demands removal. Each tag as you should know is individual unto itself and removing all tags is not acceptable and removal of all tags would result in a report to Wikipedia administration. The article is conflicting, confusing and at best hard to read and understand. These are the first tags on this article that will remain on this article. The "Dispute" tag is for conflicting sources, and as Wikipedia administration puts it "Hogging" the article. The disputes are on "Factual accuracies" and conflicting sources on many accounts. The verifiability of this article is dubious at best. The "Naeutrality is in question which is obvious on the "Archived" talk pages of this article. Also, please take note that this article has not been changed at all. The tags are there for other editors besides yourself to edit and contribute. These will be revealed and to the general editors community when I have time to assimilate the vast amount of information. Until then, I invite other editors to edit and contribute. I would hate to take this to arbitration but I will if need be. Also, I have edited Gaumont, Pathe and other articles. I also have tags on these with no responses as of yet, just this one which seems to stir an unusual amount of attention. To fully answer your question, I suggest you visit the talk page and my talk page, contact our AMA Tutmosis, and when I am back from my tour (In a week or so) there will be plenty to discuss.
--Roger the red 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't enough to say that there are conflicting sources you need to say what the conflicts are. You put those tags up last month and haven't engaged in any discussion of them. We can wait another week, but unless there's some activity on ths talk page they should be removed. And yes, I have followed your instruction and asked Tutmosis to respond on your behalf. -Will Beback · † · 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only ask for your patience, Will Beback, that more time is given for Roger to provide his case. He seems to be busy in life at the moment and does not seem to have the time to post all his concerns. The way I understand it is the tags were mostly added based on the older discussions posted above on this page which still have not been solved. Thanks, — Tutmosis 00:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger the red seems to have plenty of time to post complaints. If he's too busy to edit here then the POV dispute tags aren't relevant. If you'd like to figure out what his complaint it we can address it. Everytime I ask him he just says it's already been described. Just posting a POV tag and refusing to say why is called "hit and run tagging". As I said above, I'm certainly willing to wait another week. -Will Beback · † · 03:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Readers, please refer to Talk:Roger the red for further disputes about this article. --Roger the red 05:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and other Dispute Notices[edit]

This is to all our new contributing editors for this article. Wikipedia prides itself on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and open contributions. However, there are many conflicting verified sources, and quite a few biased statements ---> See this talk page and Archives. You can easily view the information on this page, and PLEASE go to the Archives page which has the majority of what I am speaking of. Since I will not be online frequently, these notices will hopefully improve upon this artcile which now is disheveled at best. --Roger the red 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section rewrite[edit]

What is wrong with the opening of the article that it has been given a "Section Rewrite" tag for a complete rewrite? It looks quite good as it is to me. — Walloon 06:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A previous editor has added four editing tags to the top of the page. That rewrite tag was just a way of swapping four for one. I agree that the article is acceptable as-is, so if there's no objection we can remove the tag.

Going forward, I think this article should perhaps be split, as the articles on various incarnations of Pan-Am are split. -Will Beback · † · 07:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb filmography[edit]

I can vouch that the internet Movie Database contains virtually all Biograph films through 1903, but is still missing hundreds of titles after that date. I am engaged in a long-term project to enter all U.S. films released through 1910 into the IMDb. The project is now complete through January 1904, but February 1904 through December 1910 remain to be completed. For example, Biograph produced 265 films in 1904; the IMDb currently has 126 of those. — Walloon 13:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split it?[edit]

Perhaps the article needs to be split into two separate articles, for the original and current companies, to avoid squabbles over whether it's "defunct" or not? *Dan T.* 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This situation seems similar to the history of PanAm airlines. It went out of business then was revived a couple of times. We have separate articles for each incarnation: Pan American World Airways, Pan American Airways (1996-1998), Pan American Airways (1998-2004). In this instance the original company is more notable so we could leave it at the present name and the new company could be at "American Mutoscope and Biograph Company (1991)". -Will Beback · † · 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, though I haven't seen any evidence that the new company is notable enough for an article. —tregoweth (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting it into two articles won't end the squabbling by the new company that it is really the same as the old company, will it? I don't know if the new company really has enough substance for its own article. In 16 years it has released one commercial product: a DVD containing an interview with Tommy Bond and a silent Our Gang comedy in the public domain. — Walloon 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't to end squabbling, which would probably continue no matter what. The immediate problem we're facing is the use of categories. These two sets are in conflict.

Splitting the article would allow more logical categorizattion. I think we can make a case for the notability of the new company based on several profiles they've received. -Will Beback · † · 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting would be the obvious choice. We can always refer one article to the other. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article on the 1991 company would almost certainly be deleted, though, as failing WP:N. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The WP guidelines for notability say, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." Virtually all the secondary sources I have seen for the new Biograph (and there aren't that many) were either written by Biograph itself, or were lightly rewritten from its press releases. And the only reason it got what coverage it did was because of its claim to be the same company as the old Biograph, and thus the world's oldest movie company. Divorced of that claim, the new Biograph would get no coverage at all — one minor video release in 16 years has been its entire output. — Walloon 22:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are probably right. While a split would simplify some record keeping, like categories, if that just results in the "new" article getting deleted then that's not any progress either. I'll withdraw my suggestion until the new company becomes notable enough for an article of its own. -Will Beback · † · 09:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]