Talk:RKO Pictures

GPM/European Rights

I found a good citation for the KirchMedia/German rights statement. Do you have one for the RAI/Italian rights? It's okay if it's in Italian--we can add it to the footnote I've created after the relevant sentence.

Also, we obviously don't have to specify the rights situation in every country on Earth, but it would be nice to know who controls them in France, one of the largest markets in the world for old American movies. I haven't been able to track it down. Any clues? Best, Dan—DCGeist 21:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work on the RKO article, Dan. This might be a lead for you regarding the French rights. RKO movies are distributed on DVD by a company called Éditions Montparnasse:

http://www.editionsmontparnasse.fr/fr/S97/R89/video_a_la_demande/rko.html

Hope this helps a little.

-Jim Jmurphy56 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Jim. To you and any others: I'm not terribly happy about resorting to the "DVD Times" cite to support the assertion that Universal holds most of the RKO video rights in Britain. So far, the other support I've found online from this seems to derive from the Wikipedia claim (which has been up there for a while) rather than being valid, independent sources of information. If anybody has any good sources in support of the claim (or, of course, any well-sourced info that contradicts it), that'd be much appreciated. —Dan DCGeist 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi DCGeist, I found the information about the RKO's italian rights in a italian cinema encyclopedia, the only web page reference I found ([1]) is a brief dossier about the satellite TV written by Luigi Mattucci, president of RAI-SAT the satellite TV subsidiary of "RAI Radiotelevisione Italiana". He states .........."Perché, per parlare di RAISat, se intendessi fare una rassegna dei film americani della RKO, dovrei rimettermi all’imperscrutabile giudizio di chi ne possiede in perpetuo i diritti (nel caso specifico la Fininvest, alla quale va comunque riconosciuta la lungimiranza di averli acquistati, pensate un po’, dalla RAI)?".......... The paragraph sounds more or less: .........."Why, speaking about RAISat, if I would like to make a retrospective of the american movies of RKO I have to recover to the imperscrutabile judgment of who possesses some in perpetual the rights (in the event specific the Fininvest, to which goes however recognized the farsightedness to have it acquires them "guess a little" yes from RAI)?..........

Fininvest is the parent company of Mediaset (the TV network of Berlusconi)

I can tell you Mediaset never broadcasts the RKO movies, instead, RAI still continuously broadcasts many RKO movies and, in particular RAITRE (the third channel of RAI) regularly broadcasts two or more RKO movies on Saturday or Sunday late night. I think RAI still possesses those RKO rights.

about Leo Kirch and KirchMedia you may use ketupa.net [2]. This web site also contains some quite good pages about RKO but with some negligible error, and an RKO chronology [3]. GPM

• In France the company Ariès is the owner for some of the RKO's rights in french language.

"Editions Montparnasse" does not have any rights, it only has the mandate for the exploitation of the movies in DVD and VHS format. ref DOSSIER EM - Interview : Dans la tête des Editions Montparnasse Par Giuseppe Salza. I have a french DVD and the copyright statement for the film (not for the DVD) is "© RKO/ARIES" ciao GPM

Hi, GPM. I'll divide this by section:

(1) Do you have the Italian cinema encyclopedia handy? A published source is always great, and I think we need it to support that 1971 acquisition date given in our article (the Mattucci statement doesn't provide that). We can cite it just as we do the English-language texts: we need the encyclopedia's title; editor or editors' name(s), if any; location (i.e., city) of publication; publisher's name; year of publication; and relevant page number.

(2) I find ketupa.net great for leads, but I don't think it's a good source to cite. Like Wikipedia, it's an encyclopedic resource that does no first-hand reporting; unlike Wikipedia, it has no standard for reporting its sources. Like you, I find errors on almost all its pages--individually negligible perhaps, but collectively too many to make it a really trustworthy reference. Again, it's a good place to start for tracking down information, but shouldn't be an end point for any claims that require citation.

(3) Thanks for the clarification of the French rights situation. Let's see what we can track down about Ariès.

Best, Dan —DCGeist 15:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I correct the year, [RAI] acquired the RKO library rights in 1981.

I found it in: "L'UNIVERSALE - La Grande Enciclopedia Tematica in collaboration with 'Le Garzantine 27 volumes' "Cinema vol.I and Cinema vol.II, copyright 2003-2004 by Garzanti Libri S.p.A., Milano. It can be found in the "Cinema vol.II page 986" and it states: "Il ricco pacchetto produttivo (negativi compresi), composto da oltre mille titoli, costruito in trenta anni di attività, è oggi di proprietà della RAI che l'ha acquisito nel 1981 per una cifra relativamente bassa."

FBO company name

There is an error in the company name of "Film Booking Office of America" the right name is: "Film Booking Offices of America". for references you can see:

• graphic logo
• IMDB
• FBO company logos gallery with the right name

I wrote the same thing in the FBO article discussion, I'm not able to make the necessary change.(GPM)--151.29.129.12 00:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I've created a new article with the proper spelling; linked to it; and detailed how to verify it. An administrator can eliminate the old, improperly headed article.DCGeist 01:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A good source of informations about the RKO rights and RKO library

I would like to disclose a "law case" I found. It's very interesting and important about the RKO rights (it's a gold mine of true informations). but the technical language is a little bit difficoult for me because I'm not very familiar with english. I'm sure there's someone will read the law case and will use it to improve the RKO article. Here it is the law case and the link: SALTZMAN v CIR U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Argued: October 3, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=2nd&navby=case&no=964195 Ciao GPM from Italy - 15:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Questioning accuracy of dating of Keith-Albee-Orpheum and Pathé acquisitions [resolved]

The published sources I have checked describe both of these acquistions as occurring later than the article currently states.

For KAO: I have found no published source that describes Kennedy and FBO having anything to do with the KAO theater chain before RCA became involved in 1928, and two sources that directly contradict an earlier date.

The Hollywood Story, by Joel W. Finler (New York: Crown, 1988): "RCA...was looking for a means of exploiting its sound patents and expertise and purchased the FBO studio in 1928. Later that year a merger with the Keith-Albee-Orpheum theatre chain was the final step in the creation of...RKO" (p.168).

The RKO Story, by Richard B. Jewell (New York: Arlington House/Crown, 1982): After RCA's acquisition of a "substantial interest" in FBO in January 1928 (p. 9), "FBO now had the economic muscle of RCA backing it up, [but] the studio remained vulnerable.... The obvious problem was its lack of theatres. Sarnoff and Kennedy discovered the solution in an affiliation between FBO and the Keith-Albee-Orpheum circuit of vaudeville houses.... In October 1928...RCA, through an equitable exchange of stock, gained control of both Keith-Albee-Orpheum and FBO, resulting in the birth of a giant $300 million corporation" (p. 10).

For Pathé: Similarly, no sources indicating its control by Kennedy, FBO, Sarnoff, RCA, or RKO before 1930 at the earliest.

The Hollywood Story: "Late in 1930 RKO had over extended itself by taking over the Pathé studio and exchange" (p. 168); "1931: The Pathé studio and exchange takeover is completed in January" (p. 170).

The RKO Story: "On 29 January, 1931, RKO assimilated the Pathé Exchange—its Culver City studio and its contract stars... The idea was to operate RKO Pathé as an autonomous unit within the corporate structure" (p. 32). --DCGeist 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

---

In order to vanish your doubts, please read the book "RKO the biggest little major of them all" written by Betty Lasky in 1984 and published by Prentice-Hall. This book is one of the best resouce about RKO Radio-Keith-Orpheum, KAO Keith-Albee-Orpheum, Pathè Exchange, RCA Radio Corporation of America and all people involved in the RKO formation. GPM from Italy - 08:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, GPM. The book you mention is out of print and, amazingly, the New York Public Library owns no copy. However, I have read enough highly reliable published sources now to appreciate the cause of confusion and to understand the facts--the basics of which are now reported properly in the article. In addition to The RKO Story, an official history of the studio, my cited sources are The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys by Doris Kearns Goodwin, one of the most respected historians in the United States, and Technology and Culture—The Film Reader by Andrew Utterson, a recent (2005), exhaustively detailed, and well sourced text.--DCGeist 23:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, DCGeist I'm italian and I easily found "RKO the biggest little major of them all" used at powells.com I also have "The RKO Story", "The RKO Gals" and "The RKO Features" among others and I can teel You the book of Betty Lasky is very accurate and full of unknow details about the RKO Radio Pictures history. I think you will be able to find it fastly and easily. Ciao! GPM 09:346, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I intend to get it from an online source myself. I just know that will be a matter of a week or two and I wanted to get the basic facts in now so the dispute template could be removed. I look forward to reading her book. Thanks for directing me (and whoever else has been following this) to it.--DCGeist 15:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

GeneralTire and GenCorp links

For Demiurge, you removed www.generaltire.com and www.gencorp.com links but those links were added because the two companies were involved in the RKO story. I have a huge interest in all things regarding RKO. It wasn't spam, it was only for educational and informative purposes. I think the two links can remain in the article. GPM from Italy

My mistake, I've added your changes back in. Demiurge 18:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Film library

I don't know where this would go, but Samuel Goldwyn Productions-produced films from the 1940's and 1950's that were merely distributed by RKO (such as The Pride of the Yankees, The Best Years of Our Lives, and The Bishop's Wife) are today owned by Goldwyn's successor company, MGM.Ranma9617 05:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Remarkable job

Excellent discussion of a topic that is continually misunderstood. Made a few changes, such as including the hostile takeover bid for GenCorp as an incentive for RKO General to agree to settle the FCC matter by divesting its broadcast properties (the proxies from the time,and the responses to the hostile takeover attempt of 1987, revealed the company strategy of ending the license proceedings by selling the stations and raising cash, essentially to pay the Greenmail extorted by the interests who launched the hostile takeover. GenCorp also sold off its tire business, regaining its position in technology companies. Also, the WOR legislation did not specifically name New Jersey, but was clearly aimed at New Jersey by requiring a preference for license renewal to states without VHF service. Minor quibbles on a very well-presented treatment of an article which tackles an often misunderstood situation (wish I had a nickel for every time I have seen it written that all the RKO properties had licenses 'revoked')

RKO's new future suggestion

You know what? I think RKO Pictures should be sold to Sony Pictures Entertainment so RKO can get back into theaters. King Shadeed 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you! RKO Pictures needs to be under a big multimedia company in order to come back in theaters, but I don't think Sony Pictures Entertainment is the best choice, because Sony controls yet many pictures company or pictures brands (Columbia, MGM, United Artists, TriStar, Orion, Sony Pictures, etcetera etcetera.....) there is no space for another glorious brand. I think a very good deal should be with Paramount (who owns the old RKO Radio Pictures studio lot in Hollywood at Gower 780). Or Warner bros. (who controls the bulk of RKO Radio Pictures movies productions).

Hey, I thought this wasn't a chat place. And although I'd love to get into this topic, Shadeed, Wikipedia just doesn't allow Wikichat. So, I just thought I'd tell you that. 71.111.215.224 21:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Very funny 71.111.215.224, this is only a discussion page! Hey, that's just like saying Warner Bros. has a lot of subsidiaries. I think SPE is a good choice. Regardless of, there's no such thing as no space for another subsidiary. King Shadeed 19:32, 9 June 2006

Shadeed, don't you remember me? I'm MegaMan. I had to leave the International Jingle Collection because of my parents. 71.111.232.40 16:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Rocky Horror Picture Show

RKO Radio Pictures plays a relatively prmonent role in the movie, and, I guess, in the musical, the Rocky Horror Show, as the final numbers are performed in front of a fullscreen RKO backdrop. RKO is also mentioned in the opening song, Science Fiction Double Feature. Could anyone suggest how this could be worked in to the RKO article?

Science fiction double feature

Doctor X will build a creature
See androids fighting Brad and Janet
Anne Francis stars in Forbidden Planet
Wo oh oh oh oh oh
At the late night, double feature, picture show
I wanna go
To the late night, double feature, picture show
By R.K.O.
To the late night, double feature, picture show
In the back row

To the late night, double feature, picture show

samwaltz 21:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good call. I really don't see it as being appropriate to the main text of the article, but at one of the spots where there's a discussion of RKO's emphasis on B-pictures, I'll place a callout to a narrative note describing just what you've detailed here. Thanks, Sam. --Best, Dan/DCGeist 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

RKO closing logo

As posted on editor AlbertSM's Talk page (DCGeist 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)):

Hi. In your recent contribution to the "RKO Pictures" article covering the matter of logos, you stated in reference to the Walt Disney productions released by RKO that "none of these films show the closing logo at the end." In contrast, this detailed online survey of RKO logos states, concerning the closing thunderbolt logo, "A 'Distributed by RKO Pictures' variant in color on a blue background appeared on some pre-1953 Walt Disney films which RKO distributed. Usually plastered [now] with a Buena Vista Distribution Co. logo, but occasionally appears on a few cartoon shorts on the Disney Treasures DVD collection." Similarly, this serious online source states, "For the Disney films, the end credit shield logo was incorporated into the overall design of the main title [as you've described] and down in the credits there would be one reading: 'Distributed by RKO Radio Pictures.'" Do you happen to have an authoritative source for your assertion?

You similarly stated that the RKO closing logo (and opening logo, for that matter) originally appeared on "none of the films" the studio released made by Samuel Goldwyn or many of the other independent producers whose work the studio released (the Orson Welles films, of course, were RKO-Mercury coproductions). Could you explain how you are certain of this? Any citations, online or published, would be helpful. Thanks much. Best, Dan—DCGeist 21:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

About the Disney's classic cartoons and featured films distributed by RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., I can contribute with my personal experience, (because I have a lot of RKO's DVD). The original closing logo (the triangle enclosing a thunderbolt) was always used as opening logo in Disney's movies and it was coloured and presented in various and beautiful shape ("Pinocchio", "Dumbo" and "Alice in wonderland" are three of the best examples). About the featuded films I have "Treasure Island (1950)" and it has the triangle enclosing a thunderbolt as opening logo, the background is blue and the triangle is gilded, below the triangle you can read "Distributed by RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.". Before the DVD era, when those movies were re-released in theaters by Buena Vista the RKO logos were plastered by the Buena Vista logos but the last restorations for the DVD versions restored the old RKO logos (except for Bambi and Cinderella). GPM

RKO General

This page was becoming pretty long, in part due to the stuff on RKO General. There really is enough info on it that I split it off into a separate article.Blueboy96 21:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Big!

My browser told me this article is 562KB. That's quite large for a WP article. Perhaps there could be a seperate article for "The Films of RKO"? A lot of that 562KB is probably movie posters. Whyaduck 05:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

DCGeist

Apparently, DCGeist thinks he owns this page. I am trying to add information about an important and significant film, The Runaround (1931) but instead of giving a rational reason for his refusal to allow someone besides himself to edit this page DCGeist refuses to budge on anything he doesn't approve. Apparently he thinks he owns this article. I am therefore adding a POV tag according to wikipedia policy.Zosimus Comes 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The following information was removed by DCGeist: "The Runaround" was an important filmed as it was the first film to be shot in a new process of two-strip Technicolor which was designed to remove grain. It excelled anything that had been seen up to that time. Though the content of the film was judged by critics as a failed comedy drama, "The Runaround" was widely lauded for its beautiful color and visual brilliance and technical expertise (for an example, see the review in Variety, August 11,1931).Zosimus Comes 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. As far as "ownership" goes, I have accepted on good faith your cited edit concerning the Babes in Toyland project, despite the fact that the highly reliable Los Angeles Times online archive does not evidence the article you cite, whatever pertinent word string is used. Still, we'll take it. And I'll go down to the library and check out the hard copy for myself.

As for your primary plaint: There are two standard reference books on the history of RKO Pictures, the subject of this article. The standard Lasky history of RKO says not a word about The Runaround. The standard Jewell history/film-by-film inventory of RKO says the following on topic: "Why this minor fluff of a film was made in colour remains anybody's guess" (p. 38). The leading mutli-decade scholarly history of Hollywood as an industrial and technological enterprise is The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960, by David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson. It says not a word about The Runaround. The leading decade-specific scholarly history of Hollywood as an industrial and technological enterprise is Grand Design: Hollywood as a Modern Business Enterprise, 1930–1939, written and edited by Tino Balio. It says not a word about The Runaround. Given the most pertinent reliable sources in the field, it is readily arguable that The Runaround (like the similar Fanny Foley Herself) does not merit mention in this article at all. Not a single word. That they do appear here is largely out of compromise with your insistent pushing of the topic under you former guise as AllTalking (see User talk:AllTalking and AllTalking Contributions). It is your POV that it is, by both Wikipedia and all reasonable standards, non-neutral. Tag removed. Sayonara, Zosimus.—DCGeist 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonfree images

This article has far too many nonfree images to meet WP:NFCC#3: "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary."

The images of movie posters and movie stills do little to illustrate the production company - these belong on the articles about the movies, not here. They don't increase the reader's understanding of the topic of this article - the production company - in a way that text cannot. The images on the articles about the movies themselves illustrate the appearance of the movies; there is no need to repeat that illustration here, and doing so does not minimize the use of nonfree images in Wikipedia as a whole. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(A) In fact, most of the images are free, as RKO (and its successor, RKO General) evidently did not renew any of its copyrights on the sort of marketing material that comprises most of the article's image content. Licensing information will be appropriately updated as each image is individually researched.

(B) The statement that the images "do little to illustrate the production company" is insensible. The movies are the products of the production company—they are significantly illustrative on that prima facie basis alone. In addition, a movie studio is in an industry where its public image--created, sustained, and adjusted via marketing--is essential to its business. Such images as the article contains are thus especially important for an understanding of the company and its business practices. Furthermore, a major movie studio such as RKO has a significant place in cultural history--a full understanding of the cultural artifacts it produced is this vital to understanding its importance. This sort of understanding requires both text and imagery.—DCGeist 20:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I just checked, and it appears that all but three of the images are tagged as nonfree. The three that are tagged as free are dubious; there is no reason we should trust volunteer legal research into the copyright status of images.

I stand by my statement that these images do little to enhance readers' understanding of the company. Even if an argument could be made for one or two of them, this article has 16 (!) images tagged as nonfree, if my count is correct. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the judgment of professional legal counsel be sought for every evidently public domain image on Wikipedia? (I mean, !). Talk about dubious...—DCGeist 21:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No; if the copyright holder explicitly release the image, for example by uploading the image themselves, then we can trust that. But it's unreasonable to claim as public domain images whose copyrights would belong to major businesses if they had been renewed, only because a volunteer here cannot find a record of the copyright. Unless we have a statement by the copyright holder or our lawyer that these images are public domain, such images should be tagged as nonfree. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting personal opinion—you should find the right venue to promote it in. As it stands now, our public domain content guideline gives specific advice to Wikipedia contributors "on how to search the registry of the U.S. Copyright Office for copyright registrations and renewals." For the time being, we volunteers are still in business. Oooo, I know! How damned Wikipedian!—DCGeist 22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I started a thread about tagging images as public domain in WT:NONFREE. In any event, only three images on this page are tagged as public domain, leaving 16 nonfree ones. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Radio Pictures Inc." ?

This is an excellent article, but just one negative comment: I dont think there ever was a "Radio Pictures Inc.". On the early pictures, the copyright is to the RKO Distributing Corporation, then RKO Productions,Inc., and finally, in 1930 to RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. The presentation credit was originally "RKO Productions, Inc.", then "Radio Pictures" until 1937 when it became "RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.". I think Radio Pictures was never a legal entity and was merely a trade name. The Radio Keith Orpheum Corp. ad in my 1930 Year Book of Motion Pictures states "Radio Pictures produced and distributed by RKO Productions, Inc.". By the way, the same source shows around 97 theaters as owned by the RKO theater circuit as of 1929, which corresponds with your suspicion about inflated numbers of theaters in some sources. The earliest print reference to "RKO Radio Picture" I've seen is for 1931's "Are These Our Children". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkolian (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thnaks for that. I've looked over what I can online--basically Google Book snippet views of old government documents--and the weight of evidence does indicate the primary business was incorporated as RKO Radio Pictures Inc. by the mid-1930s at least. Before changing the article, I'm just going to stop by the library and check the original newspaper source: "New Incorporations," New York Times, April 11, 1929. Thanks again.—DCGeist 16:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been three years and I'm still unconvinced there was ever a "Radio Pictures, Inc.". Radio Keith Orpehum was a holding company; the picture production division was first RKO Productions, Inc., then RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. There is no copyright to Radio Pictures, Inc. or any indication, in any source I've read about RKO, that this was anything but a trade name. Please correct this because I keep seeing it come up on the internet as fact, and I don't think it is.

Note, among other things that the presentation credit always shows "Radio Pictures presents", no "Inc." and in fact the last few RKO Radio Pictures, after "RKO Radio Pictures, Inc." had been renamed "RKO Teleradio Pictures, Inc." show "RKO Radio Pictures presents" (no "Inc."). So, if it had been Radio Pictures, Inc., I think it would have been stated as such on the presentation credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkolian (talk • contribs) 05:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Years

Editors should always be hesitant to change stable style without a compelling reason and clear support from WP:MOS. A personal opinion about what constitutes "pedantic" style is not a compelling reason. And our Manual of Style may be interpreted to support either position on whether a year at the beginning of the sentence should be spelled out or expressed as a numeral. So let's go to the real world. The Chicago Manual of Style is clear on this matter: if a sentence begins with a year, it should be spelled out. The practice of the leading American newspapers—the New York Times and Washington Post—is precisely the same: sentences are routinely cast so that they begin with years, and those years are invariably spelled out.

The latest "improvement"—"The year 1952"—is redundant and clumsy and will be reverted in good time.—DCGeist (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more reasonably brought up on an MOS talk page, rather than this one? --Golbez (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Who are you trying to kid, Golbez? You changed stable and proper style to improper style. When I explained the rules of proper, long-established American English style to you, and provided multiple sources of real-world evidence, you called me a "pedant." Then you rewrote a perfectly legible sentence into something redundant and clumsy. But you don't want to discuss all that here. Oh no, let's take the matter somewhere else.

Fine, Golbez, fine. Make your case on an MOS page, and I will join you there. Meanwhile, the improper style you have imposed on the article will be corrected.—DCGeist (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Golbez, I thought you wanted to pursue this matter on an MOS Talk page. I haven't seen any action yet. I'm ready to present the evidence I've marshaled above and to expand on it. I assume you're ready to present your opinion that the well-established, well-recognized standard treatment of years--as evidenced by America's leading periodicals and style manual--is "pedantic." Let's go, buddy!—DCGeist (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I quote from WP:MOSNUM: The numerical elements of dates and times are not normally spelled out, the exception being noteworthy historical and cultural references, like Fourth of July. But this could readily be resolved by repunctuating. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The other exception is the beginning of sentences. I have presented multiple sources of high-quality, real-world evidence to support this. Do you have any evidence at all to support your contention that beginning a sentence with a year expressed as a numeral is acceptable style in proper American English writing?—DCGeist (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And those exceptions are parallel; one does not override the other. Please provide a link to your "high-quality, real-world evidence"; I must be overlooking it. I hope the present adjustment of typography will serve as a reasonable compromise; but if not, please stop revert-warring over this triviality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• How about the San Francisco Special Libraries Association writing 2007 is the year... at the beginning of a paragraph? Usage makes correct American. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To start, PMAnderson, you do not know how to communicate in English. "And those exceptions are parallel; one does not override the other" is a completely incoherent sentence in this context. There is a general rule and two very distinct exceptions—one clearly applies in this case, the other is clearly totally irrelevant to it. Please take remedial English if you wish to debate me. I hate to argue with someone who expresses himself like a blithering idiot.

"Usage makes correct American"? Seriously? You think that's a sentence in the English language? I'm sorry. Forget taking remedial English, just take a vow of complete, utter, blissful silence--then we'll be getting somewhere.

As for links to my "high-quality, real-world evidence"--again, seriously? You do own the Chicago Manual of Style, right? I mean, you're not so blitheringly stupid shameless as to mouth off about style matters without even possessing a copy of the leading style manual of American English, right? Oh. Right. You are that blitheringly stupid shameless. The CMS (have you even heard of it?) is not readily accessible online. Here are just a few links from America's most respected newspaper: [4] (see graf 1), [5] (see graf 5), [6] (see graf 1). Want more? I can give you dozens, boychik.—DCGeist (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, CMS is on-line; it requires subscription. At least two of the Times articles are not on point; if 1952 were the first word in the article, I would spell it out too, as Lincoln extended 87, for euphony; that is not the case here. You have now reverted at least four times, and demonstrated unwillingness to accept, or try for, recasting the sentence, which is what CMS actually recommends. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"I mean, you're not so blitheringly stupid as to mouth off about style matters without even possessing a copy of the leading style manual of American English, right?" Another comment like that and I'm taking this to a higher authority. --Golbez (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PMa, once again your argument is simply incoherent: now you've fabricated a new rule for beginning of articles versus beginning of sentences elsewhere. That's a feeble joke. No manual of style has ever expressed anything like such a rule. No newspaper makes this distinction--if you would trouble yourself to do the least bit of research, you would see that years are always spelled out at the beginning of sentences in our nation's leading periodicals, wherever those sentences appear. But I know you hate to do any research, and hate to challenge your own ill-informed opinions. That's why I chose two articles that begin with a year, so you wouldn't have to strain your poor brain (and I do mean "poor").

For the interest of anyone else, PMa is incorrect when he states that "recasting the sentence...is what CMS actually recommends." Here is the rule stated by the CMS: "At the beginning of a sentence any number that would ordinarily be set in figures is spelled out, regardless of any inconsistency this may create." Here is one of the examples given: "Nineteen seventy-six was the year of the nation's bicentennial celebration." Following this, there is another clause: "If this is impracticable or cumbersome, the sentence should be recast so that it does not begin with a number." Clearly, the standard is to spell out; clearly, beginning a sentence with a year expressed as a numeral is improper, without exception. Matters of "practicality" or "cumbersomeness" are clearly judgment calls--as they are exceptions to the standard rule, with its clear example, logic compels us to conclude that most cases of spelling out years should not be considered "impracticable or cumbersome." That advisory would presumably cover special cases such as those where space is at a premium--not the case in this article. At any rate, personal opinions about what is "cumbersome" (like personal opinions about what is "pedantic") hardly rise to the level of the "substantial reason" our Manual of Style requires for changes to stable and proper style.

You're acting like a little child, Golbez. How about educating yourself in the rules of proper style, instead of needlessly disrupting stable articles (please refamiliarize yourself with WP:MOS: "It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so.... If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style"), ignoring evidence (please refamiliarize yourself with the broader spirit and purpose of WP:V), and calling people "pedants" when your mistakes are caught out (you should be a damn sight more humble about policing WP:CIVIL, right buddy)? There. Now feel free to whine this to as many higher authorities as will indulge you.—DCGeist (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You amuse me. "It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so.... If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style" Kind of like what you did? "WP:V" I'm sorry, who's accusing who of vandalizing here? I certainly never did. As for WP:CIVIL, you're more than welcome to bring my behavior to the greater community as well, but since you have expanded beyond merely insulting me, but insulting others whom are offering their WP:3O (since you're so fond of throwing acronyms at a long-time user), I strongly suggest again that you cool your jets and various other WP: things that are vaguely relevant. --Golbez (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's start with the 3RR violation, which DCGeist can justify here. Civility questions can follow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DC Geist is blocked. Can we think of a tweak that will join the sentences (thus answering DCGeist's objections, but allows the clearer 1952.? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DCGeist, I added a perfectly legitimate post on the main article about RKO adopting the first 4 notes of Beethoven's 5th Symphony during the opening logo during the war years. Three dots and a dash being morse code for V for victory. You've twice removed this VALID post asking me for citations. If you want tangible sources, try every single RKO movie made between 1941 & 1945. This is a fact that anyone who knows anything about RKO is aware of already, (including yourself, and if you didn't, then maybe you're not the high and mighty authority on RKO that you consider yourself to be and should stop interfering). Stop being a nazi and let others have their additions. It seems a lot of what people have said about you on this page is true. BTW, I have readded my valid addition once more. Please see that it stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.47.25 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you call me or anyone else a "nazi" ever again, I'll do everything in my power to see that you're banned indefinitely.—DCGeist (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called one, stop acting like one. and justify your removal of my legitimate post, instead of using my ill chosen words as a defence to hide behind. Do you really think you actually own this article? Yes or No?. Once again, and for the Umpityumpth time, I have added my VALID and LEGITIMATE post. If you don't like it, then present some evidence of your own to confirm that this DIDN'T happen. As you will be hard pushed to do this, (as there isn't any), then I suggest you let this post remain, if not, then I shall report YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.47.25 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Claim about logo opening music

The anonymous editor who keeps adding this claim needs to learn something: the threshold for inclusion of material on Wikipedia is not "truth", but verifiability. If not a single authoritative source has seen fit to mention this supposed "fact" within the past six-and-a-half decades, it is hardly worthy of mention in this encyclopedia. If you have a source that meets our standards of verifiability, please cite it, otherwise your claim about "every single RKO movie made between 1941 & 1945" is unacceptable original research. DocKino (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll do you one better. If you can find ANY RKO movie that didn't have the first four notes of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony played during the initial logo sequence since America's involvement in WWII until VJ day, then not only will I stop bothering you all, but I'll also print a FULL apology. If you can't, then let my VALID and LEGITIMATE post remain. I have have laid down the challenge. A challenge that you will no doubt lose. You have asked me to provide proof of ALL RKO movies in the war years having this victory cadence. All you have to do is to provide evidence of ONE that doesn't. Surely your task is easier than mine. Once again, I am ADDING MY ADDITION TO THIS PAGE. If it is removed, then I shall report with the strongest conviction, those who remove it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.47.25 (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I see my edits were undone

Please show me evidence that Radio Pictures, Inc. existed. The films are copyrighted to RKO Distributing Corp. and RKO Productions trhough 1930, then RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. from 1931. Jewell, Lasky, Balio nor any other reference I have mentions Radio Pictures Inc., and in fact Jewell states RKO Productions, Inc. was the initial production unit, and the films were "trade named" Radio Pictures. I believe the production subsidiary prior to RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. was RKO Productions, Inc. This is also stated in the Year Book of Motion Pictures, Film Daily, 1930.