Talk: Motion Picture Association of America
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
I have removed the list of IP addresses that appear on this page because it is not the sort of thing to appear in an encyclopedia article. Also there was such a huge range of IP addresses it is hard to believe that they all belong to the MPAA. -- Popsracer 22:37, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The statements Valenti made in 1982 are not POV - they're famous. Everytime he makes (another) end of the world prediction for the movie industry, someone bring up the boston strangler quote. They belong in the article. →Raul654 15:23, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
PS: Calling other people vandals does not help your credibility, especially when they've been here far longer than you.
- This is an article about the MPAA. Not about Valenti, and not about the DMCA. Including this quote out of context is extremely POV. Anthony DiPierro 15:27, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
OK, Let's review that statement piece-by-piece.
This is an article about the MPAA.
- A good start. I agree, so far...
Not about Valenti,
- No. Valenti was president of the MPAA since it was founded over 40 years ago. He and it are virtually synonomous. He was called to testify before congress in 1982 *because* was president of the MPAA. For either of these reasons (but especially when both) what Jack Valenti has to say about *anything* bears strongly on an article about the MPAA.
and not about the DMCA.
- Given that the MPAA is one of the biggest proponents and users/citers of the DMCA, it also bears strong relavence to this article.
- How has the MPAA used the DMCA? The DMCA is generally used against the MPAA, as a defense for copyright infringment. Or are you talking about DeCSS? Most of the big DeCSS cases have been based on criminal law, on which the "user" of the DMCA is the federal government, not the MPAA. Anthony DiPierro 05:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Including this quote out of context
- Let's consider the quote in question: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." Taking something out of context means that you express it lacking in something that was in the orignal expression, so as to change the original meaning of the statement. So, please tell me - what context am I missing here? What meaning of the sentence has been changed by quoting it here? I assume the boston strangler and VCRs he refers to are the same ones I know of today.
is extremely POV.
- His point of view, maybe. Definetely not mine. But citing a quotation to illustrate his opinion does not violate wikipedia policy on having articles with a neutral tone.
→Raul654 17:16, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
How about a compromise? I agree with Anthony that including the quote, straight, is POV; quotes, without context or support, nearly always are, since only the most outrageous quotes are memorable. However, a sentence about Valent/MPAA's opposition to technology would fit well into the article. Meelar 21:03, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough - qualify it if you want, if you think it'll make the article more NPOV. I never said it shouldn't be qualified or context explained. But unquestionably, it's encyclopedic and belongs in the article. →Raul654 22:47, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
Looks good now. Anthony DiPierro 05:30, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
