<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">In a message dated 5/5/2003 6:53:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, jtdirl@hotmail.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">It seems most Americans missed the point I was making and don't grasp the <BR>
Irish and European use of sarcasm. So let me spell it out.<BR>
<BR>
1. Most non-Americans do not use the word 'movie' and see it as a word <BR>
largely unique to America and its exclusive use on wikipedia classic <BR>
americocentrism.<BR>
<BR>
2. Most English speakers on the use 'film'. Most Americans don't.<BR>
<BR>
3. Most Americans use 'movie', not film.<BR>
<BR>
The obvious solution is to apply the same approach as we do with British <BR>
English and American English. Accept the form used by whoever writes the <BR>
article. In some areas on wiki, there are definite rights and wrongs, over <BR>
names, titles, references. But here there is no right and wrong, merely <BR>
different terms for the same thing. Wiki may well have decided to use <BR>
'movie' previously, but that was when wiki was overwhelmingly American in <BR>
terms of contributors. The longer it goes on, the more non-Americans will <BR>
join, and it hardly helps convince people that wiki isn't americocentric if <BR>
they are told they must use the American-English word in preference to their <BR>
own. It is already irritating to non-Americans when they create entries to <BR>
films in foreign languages that may not have had an American release, only <BR>
to find a French language or German language films christened 'movie'. Using <BR>
'movie' to describe a European film is as annoying to Europeans as calling <BR>
someone from Belgium French is to a Belgian, or calling someone from Ireland <BR>
'British' is to the Irish. Or indeed presuming a Canadian is from the United <BR>
States is to a Canadian. It is an causing an offence that is unnecessary and <BR>
can easily avoided.<BR>
<BR>
As to the reference to 'movie' bring used to describe Hollywood <BR>
blockbusters, that is done tongue in cheek by many Europeans to contrast big <BR>
budget Hollywood blockbusters to arthouse films or film noir. And I was <BR>
mentioning that in a tongue in cheek manner. It used to be said in Europe <BR>
that 'Americans don't ''do'' irony'. Seeing the failure to grasp the fact <BR>
that what I was saying was sarsasm, I guess that statement seems true after <BR>
all. No offence was intended. Obviously we should put different concept of <BR>
'sense of humour' and 'irony' on a list of American and European differences <BR>
on a wiki list! Wikilove.<BR>
JT.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
In the original debate, I voted for film, and I still contend that it is the better term to use. However, a couple of comments to you, JT, to show you where you are arousing some antagonism here. <BR>
<BR>
1. "Most English speakers use film. Most Americans don't." And what language is it that Americans speak? <BR>
<BR>
2. These incredible overgeneralizations. Most Americans ... Most Europeans ... Actually, most Europeans don't speak English, at least as a first language.<BR>
<BR>
3. Tossing around the term Americocentric so liberally. Why is Eurocentrism any better. <BR>
<BR>
4. Irritating to find a film called a movie? I doubt most Europeans really care that much. Some might find it amusing. Some might just go with the flow. I really wonder how many people would be "offended" by that (oh, and I've worked with the film and television industry in Europe--I even have a BAFTA nomination under my belt. Yes, they prefer film, but people I know from MIP probably wouldn't care that much).<BR>
<BR>
5. As you said yourself in an earlier post, the distinction with regard to films produced in Hollywood is highly subjective. Subjectivity is something we should avoid. <BR>
<BR>
6. You wrote: "It used to be said in Europe that 'Americans don't ''do'' irony'. Seeing the failure to grasp the fact that what I was saying was sarsasm, I guess that statement seems true after all. No offence was intended." For one thing, sarcasm is to irony like movie is to film. And, of course, we have the sweeping generalizations again. It's old and it's silly. <BR>
<BR>
That said, I think we should reopen the discussion. I would still prefer to see film--we talk about indie films, film noir, art films, and it kinda jars me to call them movies. On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for uniformity in disambiguation. And if we do stick with uniformity--which I hope for above all else--and if film is the chosen term, it would take a hell of a lot of work to convert all the films to movies. Are you willing to do that? I'm not. <BR>
<BR>
So, was your Wikilove ironic or sarcastic? <BR>
<BR>
Peace<BR>
<BR>
Danny</FONT></HTML>