Talk:Runaway production

Speedy Deletion

It's a non-notable section whose references do not support the use of the term. Furthermore it appears to be more of a collection of opinions and not truly reporting about the history of cinema as a current event and if it is, should be retitled. Google's search results only show "Runaway Films" (company), and various movies and television series with that title. I have yet to find a single search result where the use of the term refers to films produced outside of the United States. It is most likely a term whose meaning has been made up by the creator. Mkdw^talk 07:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the speedy delete, as the term is in use. I've also moved the page to Runaway production, the more common usage. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued POV edits to this page

This article, which began as a very one-sided POV piece promoting the US film industry, has once again been rewritten to promote a very specific point of view. It will require a major overhaul to properly incorporate the new material into a balanced piece. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start at rewriting, stripping out the more blatant POV material. There is still a lot to do; currently, it is mostly about the Canadian industry, and could use some data on productions that have gone to other nations. As well, I'll try to find some material on the other reasons why productions left - problems in Hollywood, strikes, location burnout and so on. I've got a good quote from California's governor too, that would work here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a page about world cinema or homegrown foreign cinema. This page is specifically about "runaway production"; it is about the SPECIFIC subsidy scheme created in Canada and mimicked worldwide -- the very real attempt to steal away lucrative American film industry productions and jobs. That's all it is about. It is neutral in its documentation of the entirety of that SPECIFIC problem and its sources and quotes. I must note that your first statement says that you weren't even aware of the issue when you tried, in vain, to delete this page; and your second statement suggested that you are going to go search for evidence of your false hypothesis to backup your claims after-the-fact of its lack of "neutrality." The article is already neutral, accurate and documented. So please refrain from putting your Canadian nationalistic spin onto something that you clearly are NOT informed about. Please refrain from 20-20 quarterbacking. If you are not even AWARE of the subject (as you said).... if you don't KNOW anything about the subject UNTIL you Google it... if your first instinct is to SQUASH it like a bug... or to try to KILL it and then plant EVIDENCE misleading people into believing that it is about something else (by making your so-called "neutral" edits)... then it seems fairly obvious that you do not have significant knowledge on the subject matter to impart anything significant on readers and perhaps you should NOT be writing about it and/or editing it. Please, per Wiki, examine your *own* bias before deleting or re-editing and/or making accusations of others.Donteatyellowsnow 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to re-read the earlier discussions, as you are directing your comments to the wrong person. I (Ckatz, the one who's working to counter your "spin") am not the one who put the page up for deletion. I'm the one who pulled the deletion request - and I've also known of the term "runaway production" long before this article came along. As for your claims of neutrality, you are anything but when it comes to this subject - as evidenced by your edits here, at History of Film, and elsewhere. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral, not merely bulletin boards for loaded language and one-sided opinion pieces. Look, you obviously feel very strongly about this issue. It may have affected you personally, or perhaps friends or associates - whatever. I'm sorry if that is the case, but you have to put that aside before sitting down to write. If you're willing to do that, I'll work with you to develop a well-rounded article. I'd much prefer that to having to continually make repairs. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the "History of Film" or "U.S. Film" page -- I feel that it is terribly skewed towards favoring European films for some reason or for citing "groundbreaking" events/films or filmmakers (some that were not) and in that sense it was biased long before I started typing away. There was obviously a prior attempt by someone to skew that in the direction of foreign films and to diminish the importance of the U.S. film industry with respect to its crucial importance in the history of film (as well as the obvious attempts by some filmmakers to write themselves or their favorite filmmakers into the history when what they have done is not historical nor groundbreaking). I was merely trying to balance some of that out and in fact, almost everything that I wrote was reverted to the European-favored history by others with their biases anyway and I have not bothered with fussing with it at this point. It is clear to anyone who has even the first college course in filmmaking history that it is lacking. With regard to this "runaway production" page -- I still feel that I gave direct quotes and citations and maintain that in that respect, I was neutral. But it's like trying to be neutral on "global warming" or on the roll of "religion in politics" -- the very nature of the subject is not neutral by the fact that the problem exists. And the problem exists because of the bad behavior of people in power (this includes the Canadian government which knows it is fighting below the belt by subsidizing their labor to that extent -- and also the greed of the big Hollywood producers and actors who choose to accept the kickbacks or budget-busting salaries that cost everyone else below-the-line). It either exists and is a bad thing or it is watered down so as not to offend anyone -- which I feel would be wrong. That's all that I was trying to present. I'm sorry if you have taken personal offense to it, but it is an offensive situation. The question being that if Canada feels that it has to prop up its film industry by stealing away jobs from the U.S. and doing so by having the government subsidize labor to the point where Americans can't compete and are effectively shut down... and they do this to allegedly prop up their own homegrown industry (which is not really what is happening with where the Canadian kickback dollars go)... at what point do they STOP doing this and say... let's see if this industry can support itself? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? This has gone on for at least a decade now. Ten years! But instead of creating a "Hollywood" in Canada, like SARS, instead of spreading jobs it is an epidemic that spreads foreign government subsidies -- and ironically Canada is finding itself "out subsidized" by other countries -- including by the U.S. which is just trying to counter attack and to preserve long-standing American jobs as well as a very vital, historic, hundred-year old, U.S. industry and art form that is pretty much one of the only art forms Americans still export. So when does runaway production stop? When does everyone agree that it is a problem and that the WTO needs to step in and stop it. When will it be fair trade and not fighting below the belt? When does Canada stand on its own two feet and compete fairly without trying to steal either the name "Hollywood" or Hollywood jobs? Or does this subsidy war keep going until producers are paying what they pay sugar cane workers in the Dominican Republic? One cent an hour? Is that what Canada wants? - Donteatyellowsnow 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think you have the basis for a good essay. You say above that you view the subject of this article as "offensive", and you appear to have a well-thought-out opinion. But how can an encyclopedia entry answer questions like "If Canada feels that it has to prop up its film industry by stealing away jobs from the U.S. . . . at what point do they STOP doing this and say... let's see if this industry can support itself? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?". As I understand it, Wikipedia encourages us to refrain from commenting on what "the right thing to do" is. As the entry stands now, it seems to reflect a sense of outrage. It might be better to just find quotes stating this point of view and enter the quotes directly into the article. This would allow you to keep your facts in the entry and would also address the others' issues regarding POV. 64.253.148.163

Donteatyellowsnow's POV edits

Donteatyellowsnow, it's obvious that you are not prepared to tolerate any text that runs contrary to your feelings on this subject. Your most recent changes clearly demonstrate that, as you apparently feel it is acceptable to use wording such "the Canadian-based SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) scare, American productions couldn't run away fast enough from Canada", "Feisty Quebec labor groups have also made a lot of trouble", and "American productions fearfully stayed home". You've also cleverly edited some of the material I added to push your agenda. If you had actually examined my changes in context, you would see that I didn't remove information about productions leaving Canada in the wake of the SARS problem. nor did I attempt to bury the text about productions going to other countries. You, on the other hand, won't allow anything that is even remotely critical of your perspective. This is really frustrating - I have offered to work with you, and you have refused. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually you have come along and tried to delete this page and then you have put graffiti over it. Then despite your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject, you have deleted major sections and/or re-written the article to reflect a Canadian bias and to omit facts or quotes (such as the ACTUAL quote about the Canadian Government fearing that other countries were "copying" their subsidy program). BTW, it is NOT inappropriate to use the verb "run" with "away" when talking about "runaway production" and I thought it was rather clever as well as factual to describe how that flow can and does reverse particularly during a crisis such as SARS (i.e. running away from Canada). You clearly object to the IDEA that productions can now be running away from Canada, as they clearly are beginning to do, and as I have documented. And BTW, that's what news media called it "the Sars scare" just like the "Bird Flu Scare"; those are not my words but actual news media terminology. And what is wrong with the word "feisty"? Do you know anyone from Quebec who might not be referred to by that word? Aren't people from Quebec naturally proud and yes... "feisty"? Please see Wikipedia's editing policy which encourages bold and creative editing and writing. I quote: "Boldness: There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be: Generally, most of us think we should be bold in updating pages." You have chosen to not be bold though. You have chosen to first DELETE this page, to question its existence, then to water it down with Canadian spin that you have attempted to find after-the-fact and without substantial knowledge of the subject. I did leave the few changes that you made that were neutral -- so don't say "you have tried to work with me" when you are obviosly trying to seem to the outside world that you are "neutral" when you are in fact, not.Wikipedia Editing Policy: Be Bold and Creative! Don't Water Down!

Donteatyellowsnow 05:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, I DID NOT TRY TO DELETE THIS PAGE! Read the page, read the comments, and get your facts straight BEFORE you make spurious accusations that don't hold up under scrutiny. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You might also wish to consider that Wikipedia's "be bold" guideline doesn't refer to using misleading, emotionally charged text to push an agenda. As for the "SARS" references etc. - again, I didn't delete them, I rewrote them to keep the information while removing the "spin". Just because a newspaper's copy editor chooses to paste "SARS scare" across the front page, it doesn't make it encyclopedic text. (Would you like it if someone added headline-grade writing bemoaning the dearth of original, quality films to the "Hollywood" article, as opposed to a reasoned analysis? I think not.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything I wrote was misleading. There were a few creative adjectives that were used. "SARS" scare, was not among them. Again, that was the common media terminology for the event. It was the text on the bottom of every television screen whether it was CNN, MSNBC or any other news outlet. And the event was, well, scary. Just like the "Anthrax Scare". "Scare" must just be a media term that is frequently used to describe things that are scary. I don't think using "scare" is loaded emotionally when that is part of the event and terminology that everyone is familiar with. In fact, I would argue that the "scare" itself might actually have been a larger part of the event as a proportion of the population being affected more than the actual spread of SARS itself. And regarding your comment about Hollywood, actually if you look at the Hollywood California page, you will see that there is a section about the homeless and runaway children population on Hollywood Boulevard that is very lengthy and obviously skewed to make it look like that is more of a problem than it actually is. I haven't checked, but I wonder if Toronto has that same section-- when it has an equally large number of homeless children and runaways lingering on the streets begging for change. I tried to edit that section in the Hollywood page (not delete it) just to bring it down in length and proportion of the issue and I believe that again, someone else with a bee in their bonnet (trying to pull down Hollywood) reversed it. What can you do? It seems par for the course here. I will say this though, my persistence with you has helped you to become more neutral and your newer edits are much less biased than previously. When previously you had gone through and removed certain words because you believed they were too charged, then I felt that you had removed much of the content as well as the heart of what the actual issue is. I know that there are others that have been more hostile and perhaps I've glommed you guys all in together as you all seem to come from the Canadian pages... that much seems apparent. You did do some severe editing and deleting previously and I think this discussion has led you to do more research and perhaps to even see that there is a real issue here. And that is a good thing - Donteatyellowsnow 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a once over today and tomorrow, but I found several easily correctable sentences. There are also many run-on sentences that can be dealt with at the same time. Mkdw^talk 07:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Essay-opinion

I've added the {{Essay-opinion}} template. Despite the sourcing and verification of the statments in the aritcle, the article advances only one side of the issue. It fails to consider other factors that may be at play. For example, nothing is mentioned about the exchange rates of currency that make some locations more lucrative than others. It is also clear it is written from a region-specific perspective, without really acknowledging it. For example, the first line of the article contends that the term is a "film industry" term; however, it is doubtful that the term is used by anyone other than the American film industry. The argument/essay is also full of referenced facts that are presented without proper foundation, making assertions that are based on an assumption of underlying facts. These are but a few of the factors spoiling what could be an otherwise excellent article.

The article does contain plenty of valid, well presented information, and there is no denying that this issue is a concern for the American film industry, if not the film industries of other countries. There is plenty of fodder for a balanced, well written encyclopedic entry on the subject. Agent 86 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted back to last night's version, which has removed that tag. Before restoring it, I wanted to explain the revert. Yesterday, the article seemed to be settling down. I did a significant rewrite, and "Dont" didn't revert it - I was hoping we were making progress. Late last night, Mkdw also went through it, and I worked with him on his changes. Unfortunately, I think today's changes were a step backwards, so I have restored last night's version. That doesn't mean it's perfect, for sure. However, I'd really like ot propose that we develop new changes here first, so as to avoid the back-and-forth edit war. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Essay-opinion}}, {{POV}}, doesn't matter, as long as those working together on this article are working it out so that there is no need for either template. Good luck! Agent 86 01:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop bulk deleting my edits! This is VANDALISM. I'm sick of it. I didn't delete YOURS! I updated and corrected since your MASSIVE revision, most of which I left in tact. Mkdw, however, made many cuts and changes I did not agree with. Stop being so biased and POV. And stop bulk erasing my edits. Donteatyellowsnow

I didn't delete anything. I simply tagged the article with the "Essay-opinion" template. I don't care how the interested editors come together to resolve their content differences, but until that happens, I'd appreciate the courtesy of leaving the template in place until that happens. Agent 86 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Donteatyellowsnow: Honestly, this is not vandalism. If you want to see vandalism, spend a bit of time patrolling the "recent edits" page, and you'll see how much fun it is cleaning up after the nitwits who think it's cool to scribble all over the encyclopedia. This is a content dispute, pure and simple, and I'm dead serious about trying to work with you on this piece. It would have been a lot easier just to file a complaint somewhere, but I'd rather try and work it through. Much of the new material you added today is in language that does not fit the Wikipedia model. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way, but it's the truth. You've rewritten the definition of economic runaway, which I sourced directly from the DGA study. You've added a paragraph at the end of the piece that is more like a conclusion for an essay. You've used words like "swindle" and "allegedly". Please look through the logs from last night. You'll see that Mkdw and I were editing at the same time, and that I was tweaking what he was writing. I'm trying to find a middle ground here - there could (and should) be more to this article than what it has been, but we have to work at it. Just so you know, I will be going through this article again later tonight. You reverted me as I was working on integrating the valid parts of your material and pruning the other stuff, so I'll have to start again. Please, again, I'm serious about trying to work this out. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what you are doing IS vandalism. Because you guys have some weird Canadian agenda... you and your buddies who are conspiring to undo every edit I make to a page that I CREATED. You have posted this and other pages on Canadian portals to try to do your dirty business for you (including the vote for Hollywood North). That page should have been deleted or renamed -- but instead it became a popularity vote. What you are doing to this article is NOT making it Wiki "model"-like. What you are doing is the very same thing that GEORGE W. BUSH does to our American EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) reports. He removes anything that he disagrees with or which doesn't promote his skewed vision of the world. And yes, like GLOBAL WARMING, RUNAWAY PRODUCTION exists! Like Dubya, you are blanking out anything you don't agree with, despite the overwhelming evidence (like a school kid covering his eyes when he plays hide and seek thinking that we don't see you or see what you are doing). You are watering down the language to take away the sting of the FACTS -- not because they are "POV" but because they aren't "YOUR POV." You are in effect trying to make it into an article of disinformation. What Canada is doing is wrong and what you are doing is equally wrong. That Canada's policy of government funded corporate welfare in the form of film industry subsidies is harmful and has cost the U.S. billions upon billions of dollars in lost revenue and thousands upon thousands of lost jobs is a FACT that is well-studied and well-documented. End of story. This isn't about the "weather" in Canada. It's so sad that you are so blindly in love with "the Great White North" that you can't see straight. No one asked you to be involved in this page. Examine your bias and check it at the door! (Or please just go make more arguments about whether Pluto is a planet or a star and leave the rest of us alone). And that goes for the rest of you Canadian parasites. Donteatyellowsnow

First off, with regards to your statement "you and your buddies who are conspiring to undo every edit I make to a page that I CREATED." You might wish to read WP:OWN, as well as the disclaimer at the bottom of the edit box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Secondly, before you continue with your theory about a Canadian "conspiracy" to hide the "truth", why don't you refer back to the top of this page... to the part where I said "I've reverted the speedy delete, as the term is in use. I've also moved the page to Runaway production, the more common usage." (That doesn't strike me as being an attempt to "hide the truth".) As for your claims that "we", the collective Canadian "conspirators", are "blanking out anything you don't agree with" and "watering down the language to take away the sting of the FACTS"... you still haven't explained why you are repeatedly rewriting the very definition of "runaway production", removing any reference to lower labour and goods costs, exchange rates, and production skills. You continue to do this despite the fact that I sourced the information directly from the Directors Guild/Screen Actors Guild-commissioned study of runaway production. Perhaps it is you who is should "examine your bias", and ask yourself why no-one - not just the "Canadian parasites", but not one other editor to date has chosen to endorse your text for the article. If this is a "conspiracy", then it must be pretty widespread, given that a fair number of editors have probably come to this page through the links you've added to a series of American-themed pages. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The DGA report as advertising

I have returned the paragraph in which the 2000 DGA report is discussed. This was previously deleted as advertising. I admit to being a bit mystified by this appraisal and welcome discussion on this matter. Victoriagirl 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Victoriagirl): I just saw your changes to Runaway production. Thank you - I was trying very hard to synthesize everything, but it's exceedingly difficult to edit in the sea of references and notes. I agree there is still a lot of redundant redundant hyper-linking, among other things, so it's nice to have some fresh eyes.

I should also add that I did not intend to re-introduce things that were previously removed per consensus (or what little there seems to have been), it simply got lost (or found) in the attempt to revamp the article. Agent 86 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realized I was talking about a completely different (but related) article. I suppose my mea culpa was a bit misplaced. Agent 86 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is extremely troubled. The DGA part is a good example. Much (or most?) of the information in this article comes from unions and advocacy groups. While it is fine to note their opinions, it shouldn't be regarded as fact or merely as "reports". The DGA for example is a union of American directors. They are obviously not a reliable source. I was going to leave the article more-or-less intact and was hoping that adding content to neglected areas would help round it out. Almost immedeately, I inadvertently stumbled across several criticisms of the DGA report, such as this one, from an LA Business Journal.[1] I was a little concerned so I decided to actually read the report and quickly found that it is quite dissimilar to the claims made in this article. It suggests that subsidies are only a part of the problem. It gives two examples of films and shows that the lower costs are only partially atributed to subsidies: 34% of savings on a $2.9M film and 21% on a $20M film (figures 22 and 23). It notes many other factors, such as currency exchange rates and infrastructure. Overall, the report argues that subsidies allow industries to mature initially and create infrastructure which makes them competitive on their own. --JGGardiner 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Would anyone object to exploring some form of dispute resolution? I'm thinking something along the lines of an RfC or the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be done, as this article has become an absolute mess and is almost nothing more than an essay and an argument. Either of your suggestions are excellent. Agent 86 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not a mess (or at least it wasn't until you started reverting edits). It's getting refined and I'm removing your repeated vandalism. I don't appreciate you just deleting everything without first reading it and/or making smaller less intrusive edits. But that's what you continue to do under the guise of "neutrality." Your attacks on this information are unfounded. Please discontinue vandalizing this page. Thank you. Donteatyellowsnow

I believe the time has come to seek the services of the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal.Victoriagirl 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. That's a good idea. --JGGardiner 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. There are OBVIOUSLY many points of view in this article and Canadians are quoted and cited several times as are all the various related sources. It is FACTUAL and WELL DOCUMENTED with sources, direct quotes, various studies, statistics and references. If you object to the fact that the runaway production problem exists or that the Canadian government has to subsidize its labor because no one would use them unless it did... then write a letter to the Canadian government. Here is not the place to try to insert arguments that aren't factually based. BTW, there was at least one set of edits made by another editor that have largely remained intact and yet none of you self-righteous nut jobs are willing to remove the POV tag. I guess that wasn't enough for that person either, as he has repeatedly reverted edits as well. This despite the fact that I left the page alone for the good part of a week when you could have done as many edits as you wanted. I welcome mediation if its going to mean an end to all of your reverts and erasing or watering down of facts or quotes. But I don't welcome it if it is just another "dogpile" of Canadian nationalists against a VERY REAL factually based page that they find unpalatable. - Donteatyellowsnow

Donteatyellowsnow, that this point your biased trolling has completely turned to vandalism and as far as I'm concerned whether you agree to a Mediation or not really has no importance to this article. We're simply trying to find an alternative solution to block your continuous biased edits from a well standing article. All our methods including warnings, requests, suggestions, and discussions have failed with you. I personally feel you lost your right to be treated as a respected member of Wikipedia when you immediately broke WP:CIVIL to go as far as making accusations about us as part of a Canadian film conspiracy to lying about our involvement with Wikipedia and other members. This is honestly your last chance to turn around and make right your being here on Wikipedia. Mkdw^talk 06:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering Donteat has been blocked for 24 hours I would say the validity of his contributions and statements are unconsequencial to the truth. Langara College 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are out of line. Stop harassing this editor and making personal snipe attacks. I'm simply not going to put up with it anymore - Donteatyellowsnow

Source Problems

I think that I've found a good example of why one has to follow ALL of the Wiki policies in order to create content that is appropriate. This quote, from a TorStar opinion piece by Antonia Zerbisias, comes at the top of the "Competing subsidies" section: Canada's TV production industry is like a house of cards -- "a rickety structure made up of regulatory protection, cable subsidy and taxpayer support – all of which could come tumbling down with just a huff or a puff."

It is sourced an documented but still very problematic. Zerb is actually talking about the Canadian Television Fund. Shaw Comm. recently announced that they are withdrawing funding. The CTF is responsible for the creation of domestic programing for domestic audiences, "Cancon". By its very nature, this can not be runaway production. The subsidies refered to are paid by BDUs, like Shaw, because they already benefit from distribution of Hollywood productions. Although the article clearly states the CTF is for domestic programming, it does mention the word "subsidy", so it was included.

This quote was inserted at the very top of the section, with no context whatsoever. Even had Zerb been referring to subsidies for runaways, the only purpose it would serve is to show that the Canadian industry is weak. As well, although all of the sentence is reproduced intact, the quotation marks have been inserted in the middle, which makes it look as though the first part is our own content based on the quote, which is not the case.

So it is important to remember that "sourced" only means that the text exists. It must still be represented acurately and inserted in a manner consistent with the NPOV policies. --JGGardiner 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Which it was (represented accurately)... You don't have to agree with a source for it to be okay by Wiki standards. It doesn't even necessarily have to be "true" (even though my sources are). Just VERIFIABLE. If someone, a Canadian, expressed himself about Canadian policy then it is something that can be quoted and is in the context of the article and is NOT "pov" because it is a quote from someone else (even if that is THEIR pov). The sentiment then becomes part of the record, and part of the facts. - Donteatyellowsnow

The problem is misrepresentation of the policy discussed. It was represented as a quote about subsidies relating to the subject of the article and section, runaway productions. In reality, it was a quote about production of "Cancon", which by its very nature can not run away from anywhere. These are productions that are intended for Canadian audiences and usually distribution only within Canada, certainly initial distribution. If Hollywood made such a production, it would have "run away" there by our article's definition. Of course Hollywood would never make this stuff because it is a huge money-loser. The government has to pay producers to make it and still force the networks to show it. That is why it is criticized by her and others. --JGGardiner 08:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I should point out that is a serious misread of WP:V. "Verifiability not truth" is the minimum threshold for inclusion. That means that truth alone is not enough for inclusion, not that untruths can be included if "verifiable". It means truth and verifiablity, as opposed to truth alone. That is why the same policy also talks about dubious sources, as well as the reason for WP:RS and other policies, guidelines and practices. --JGGardiner 22:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of term

How should we go about this? The top of the article seems to contain only the definitions of the Hollywood advocacy groups. However, in the "competing subsidies" section we have this line: "According to a study by the Canadian government, productions are beginning to "run away" from Canada as well". The source for the text actually does not use the term "run away" literally so this is our interpretation. However, since these films were for initial US distribution, they are not running away from Canada in the sense that we use it initially but rather it would mean merely leaving a preferred location for a cheaper one. Is there consensus for that sort of usage? --JGGardiner 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the definition has been rewritten several times in keeping with the overall "tone" of the article. If you go back to this version, you'll see the definition ("creative" and "economic") which I sourced from the DGA report. That was repeatedly rewritten to remove any mention of anything other than financial incentives ("subsidies"), and finally replaced in recent days with a definition based on a later report that focused on subsidies. The lead paragraph has also ballooned to include a lot of stuff that should appear later in the article. As for the "Canada-runaway" language, I agree with your thoughts that productions can't "run away" from Canada if they're coming from out of country to begin with. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at the history, it seems the edit I noticed was added in what I can assume was an attempt to say what goes-around-comes-around. I had to refrain from putting an adjective before "attempt". It othewise deviates from the rest of the article. Yes, I read the DGA report also and had noticed the creative section is missing. I also had problems with the lead and was going to bring it up. But there are so many other problems that I don't want to swamp everyone. I think quite a lot of this is going to end up on the cutting room floor. I think that it is going to take quite a lot out of a few editors to get this article in shape. I mean Wikipedia editors, not the Hollywood kind -- they can be trouble. =) --JGGardiner 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"How many editors does it take to change a light bulb?"

"If we change the light bulb, we'll have to change everything."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 01:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

delight down under

In Australia we were once delighted when US productions come here for shooting. Examples include the Matrix and Mission Impossible franchises and the latest Superman. It meant work for locals and lots of US dollars - yummy. However, the peasants caught on to the fact that cash cows are there to be milked: result being that local councils are now charging fortunes for shots of their humble streets, etc. Result: US filmmakers are now more reluctant to come down here and local filmmakers, now being slugged with the same fees, are priced out of filming in their own backyard! Lgh 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Competing subsidies

This section is completely unencyclopedic and is really about the views of a couple people and not about facts. Someone please rewrite this section! I have also removed many grammatically incorrect sentences and redundant statements. Langara College 06:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotation in the opening section

I have just applied a citation request tag to a quotation found in the opening section. I recognize that the appearance seems odd given the fact that the quotation in question is immediately followed by references. So, a few words of explanation:

The quotation ("intended for initial release/exhibition or television broadcast in the U.S., but are actually filmed in another country.") used as part of a definition of the term in question, provides no less than three different references. I am unable to find these words in the first and third of the three referenences. Unfortunately, I have no access to the second, Nick Herd's Chasing the Runaways: Foreign Film Production and Film Studio Development in Australia 1988-2002. Perhaps it is here that these words are found. In any case, the quote is lacking a page reference. Victoriagirl 01:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:043314s

I made an on-site revert to the changes made by user User:043314s. More than half the article was lost and new grammatical and punctuation errors were introduced. I think the editor tried to balance the article but in doing so introduced a new non NPOV slant to the article and a great deal of relevent information was lost. I would like to ask any major changes to this article to be discussed first as this article has been the subject of heated controversy. I was also worried because this change was User:043314s's one and only edit to Wikipedia. As well as no citations, references, and resources were provided to support his new material or removal of other. I'm not trying to deter people from editing this article, but its a strongly recommended suggestion as to avoid conflict. Thanks for your time. Mkdw^talk 18:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I support User:043314s' efforts to eliminate POV, I agree that discussion is warranted for such major changes. With this in mind, I'd like to suggest a simple beginning: the deletion of the 'Canada: A Program of Aggressive Labor Subsidies and Corporate Welfare' section, as being clearly unencyclopedic (from its rant-like title to content which amounts to little more than a quotefarm). Victoriagirl 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The section is really only there to advance a particualr point of view, and has little in the way of relevant information. BTW, I fully support the "discuss, then change" proposal. I've been wanting to clean up this article for a long time now, but haven't had the desire to get dragged back into the mess that occured before. If we hash out material on the talk page, perhaps even section-by-section, than it will be much easier to justify the final product. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)