Wikipedia:Peer review/American Mutoscope and Biograph Company/archive1

American Mutoscope and Biograph Company edit

There truly is intense bias on either side of the said article, which puts All tyhe information in question. So I am placing this for "Peer review". Please read the "Old" posting below...

OLD POSTING A new company, either a continuation of the oldest film studio in the world, or just named after it, depending who you talk to, appears to have both threatened Wikimedia legally and launched an edit war. If anyone reading this has knowledge of American cinema, your efforts to help source the current article would be appreciated. -- user:zanimum

American Mutoscope and Biograph Company NEW

Now, this is a "New" peer review request my me --Roger the red 02:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC) to verify and add information to the article stated. I unfortunately will be busy on other things, but welcome editors interested in adding, correcting, or clarifying items in this article. --Roger the red 02:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator edit

(Copied from "Talk" page)

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 03:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]