Kroger Babb is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 30, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 2, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 24, 2006 Good article nominee Listed November 26, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Ohio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).

Please do not archive

Most of the news clippings that are not web resources came from the archives at the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences Library. Because of that, some clippings lack the entire information that may otherwise be expected to be seen on a source. All should be available there upon request. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added this category to Kroger Babb for a few reasons. 1) He wrote fictional letters to advertise his movies. 2) He traveled from town to town faster than word of mouth could spread. 3) He employed numerous stand-ins to portray what he purported to be the same individual, including impersonating an Olympic Athlete. Banaticus 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it really was Jesse Owens, that's well-established. But as for the category, I do understand why it's there, although I feel it's a little misleading. Babb never sold anything as a hoax, things were often as they were described, simply sold amazingly well, and done over the top in a modern context. I'm not going to remove it, because I don't feel that strongly about it, but I'm not sure it's the best category, especially since he's the only one populating it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On longer thought, I think I'm going to remove this. It seemingly doesn't fit here, not in the typical idea at least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's really the only word in my apparently limited vocabulary used to describe this article. While learning about Mr. Babb was great, I was truly amazed by the easily-accessible tone, the great pictures (all tagged appropriately), and meticulous references. This is the sort of article to which all others should aspire. Great work! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I did reverse a few for accuracy, but left many alone. I don't agree with all of them, but I'm not interested in fighting small semantic battles when they don't change the tone of anything. I don't know much about what you changed in the middle, however, because your inline breaks messed up the history formatting, so I'm not sure there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about these inline breaks. But once these SGML comments are removed, it should be easy to compare "before" and "after". It's likely that, after further reflection, even I would think that some of my "corrections" are mistaken: no need to take them all so seriously. -- Hoary 05:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a complete idiot and never thought of doing that. God, I'm dumb. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After redoing some of my research, I'm not convinced that it should be changed much. I'm not sure where it originated from, except that it was in Europe, so I'm going to change "Italian" to "European" barring anything that turns up in the future. The actors were verifiably speaking Italian, which is where I think I got the note from. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has just got an "oppose" vote, for at least one good reason.

Wikipedia's reference system is an odd hybrid of references (in the normal sense of the word) and footnotes. Those for this article were formatted like neither; I rather arbitrarily chose to reformat them as footnotes rather than references but this work is not complete:

• It would be much more helpful if page numbers were given for each footnote referencing a book. (However, this would require major reworking, with many more discrete footnotes.)
• It's normal to add the place of publication in front of the publisher of a book: ("London: Hamish Hamilton, 1972", etc.).
• Linking of a publisher, etc., from these notes seems to be overdoing it; I've cut many of these links.
• Every note should end with a period.
• It may be helpful to identify a periodical more precisely when it is little known and has a generic sort of name: thus not "Mirror" but (imagined example) "Mirror (Anaheim, Calif.)".
• Better to go to the periodicals section of the library and identify the year of "Babb, 5 others" if at all possible.
• I may have misunderstood the Turan note when I rearranged it. Check!
• Shouldn't "Garland Press" be "Garland Publishing" or similar?
• Every recentish book should have an ISBN.

"HtH" (though it probably just infuriates). -- Hoary 00:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really infuriating, I'm more angry about another random "prose" issue with no specificity. As there's no consistency in cites and no real policy as to how to do them, I put them in so they would be easy to read. There are simply no good page numbers on a lot of these, given the different editions I used. The periodicals I've gotten all the information possible on, however, there is literally no more information I can get from them, and I've tried very hard. I have no problem taking a half hour and redoing the cites to something someone else likes, but without knowing what would pass muster, I'm not going to bother yet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quit moaning, start bothering! :-)

You're right in that there's no clear policy on citation style. There is a template for them, but I dislike the template and nobody has yet recommended its use in this article. (Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it.) But the successful FAs I've seen have both (i) followed a widely accepted style and (ii) been internally consistent. Till a couple of days ago, the notes for this article adhered to (ii), more or less, but not to (i); now they're getting there. Personally, I happen to think that for example preceding "Duke University Press" with "Durham, N.C.:" is merely a waste of typestrokes and bytes, but that's what the educated masses want (following the Chicago Manual of Style, etc etc) so let them have it. Also, if people want ISBNs and if provision of ISBNs is possible and doesn't have any obvious drawback, let them have their ISBNs: indeed, I've already provided most.

The periodicals I've gotten all the information possible on, however, there is literally no more information I can get from them, and I've tried very hard. But the periodicals didn't arrive from nowhere. I'm pretty sure that you encountered them via a secondary source. If so, say this. Imaginary example: "Los Angeles Examiner, n.d.; cited Schaefer, p.81."

On the moans about prose style: I hear you. More on that later today, I hope. -- Hoary 00:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jeff, you must be a very patient person (that's a guess, not a demand). :) –Outriggr § 04:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Jeff's a man with a mission: to insert a hero of John Waters in a prominent position of Wikipedia much more often devoted to the wholesome and soporific products of the US-Japanese entertainment oligopoly. -- Hoary

And now for style 'n' such. Tony and Sandy are demanding the best. OK, let's give it to them. Here's a list of things that I know I can't quickly fix. It will not be comforting reading.

• Introduction: "sexual education–style dramas". The meaning isn't entirely clear; can we say "dramas purporting to be for sex education"?
  • We could, but that seems even more hokey than anything else.
• Youth (which till I changed it just now was History): "Babb held a number of jobs.... He started out with jobs in sportswriting at a local newspaper in his 20s...." We learn nothing about his childhood or (coffee preference aside) his parents, but I guess he didn't go to university. Why didn't he have a job in his late teens? Or do you mean that he had a lot of short-term jobs at the very start and that the first job that he held for a significant period was in the local newspaper?
  • Unknown. What you see is what's available.
    • Then how about Babb held a number of jobs when young, at one point gaining a mention in Ripley's Believe It Or Not for refereeing a record number of youth sports matches. In his twenties he was sportswriting and reporting for a local newspaper, but....
      • I'm fine with that, honestly. I don't quite understand the difference, but it's more of a curiousity than anything else.
• Youth: Did he devise the "stunts" for execution by others in the company, or did he do them himself? If the former (which I tentatively infer), why did "he" give bags of groceries?
  • In the Chakres-Warners, it's believed that he came up with and executed the stunts himself while working for the theaters.
    • Then perhaps devise and perform rather than create, though I'd sympathize with a claim that this "improvement" is just more wordy.
      • Up to you, then. If you feel the more wordy change is an improvement, I won't protest it.
• Youth: Understanding this properly requires an understanding of medical reels. That's a redlink that needs to be blued.
  • Yeah, I don't know the proper target, though, I know we must have an article for it somewhere.
    • Then let's look for it, and fast. I'll try to do this a few hours from now, unless I see you've beaten me to it. ¶ Social guidance films "covered topics including ... drug use..." Are these what's meant? (If "medical reels" are instead for nursing school, etc., then they're not "social guidance" films.)
      • No, they're the latter, for medical training. I think I've found a useful workaround.
• Film promotion: There's a problem in the organization of this long section. A paragraph within it that starts "Following the showing" is a bit confusing: is it still about Mom and Dad or is it instead about Babb's films in general? Actually it seems to be a transitional paragraph, but a rather awkward one. Suggestion: rewrite this paragraph (perhaps dividing it into two) and rearrange what are now the sections "Film promotion" and "Later films" into a single section, "Film production" with subsections on "Mom and Dad", "Other early films", and "Later films".
  • Well, that specifically is about Mom and Dad, but it became true of many of his later features.
    • Yes, agreed, but the organization could be bettered. This would not be a simple change and it's not one that I'm keen to make; I just have a gut feeling that it's necessary. Perhaps a third person could chime in here.
      • I'll take a second look in any case, but I'm not sure how to fix it. I'll have someone look at it.
• Film promotion: Can "per-dollar returns" be rephrased?
  • I'm not opposed to it, but I'm not sure how. That's the proper term for it.
    • Then let's leave it. I know that I don't know this stuff (it's when friends talk of such delights of capitalism that I start to yawn and look at my wristwatch).
• Later films: "made more money than any other film being played at the same theater would earn over a full run" is not so informative to dumbos like me who don't know what a "full run" would have meant. A tad more information, please.
  • Okay, that I can do.
    • Looking forward to it.
      • Boom goes the dynamite.

Hoary 13:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• badlydrawnjeff talk 15:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoary 21:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • badlydrawnjeff talk 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the correction and recorrection: Babb is best known for his presentation of exploitation lurid exploitation films.

I understand how "lurid" was wrong. But for me "exploitation" isn't good here because of the jingle of "tation, tation", because of the overuse of the word in this area of the article, and because it's a term that isn't yet explained. (It's particularly odd that it appears here without quotation marks shortly before it appears with quotation marks.)

By the end of the article, I'm still a bit puzzled over "exploitation films". I understand that they're usually new edits of pre-existing junky elements, or (less commonly) freshly made junk, and that they're desperately advertised for any sensational (and often salacious) appeal. Yes, "lurid" was wrong, but "presentation of exploitation films" suggests to me that these are films of the genre or class "exploitation" just waiting to be presented, whereas I thought that it was primarily the presentation itself that turned the (often anodyne) raw material into exploitation flicks.

Sorry, I'm sleepy now; the above may make even less sense than usual. -- Hoary 21:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may simply be too close to it at this point to understand where you're coming from on this. You're not wrong - the presentation is often what put a bad film over the edge into exploitation territory, but Mom and Dad also ushered in an era where films were made specifically with this in mind. Now, the "jingle," as you put it, it still necessary - they are what they are, and I'm not sure how we can cut down on it much further. I did take a look at the part that was quoted in one place, however, and that was because the original was a direct quote, and it isn't any longer, so I've fixed that completely. Hopefully this helps a bit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poster caption, 1965; list of works, 1970. -- Hoary 11:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the year in the caption to 1970.

Thanks for the comments in the sections above, which I'll read more carefully rather later. In the meantime: There've been complaints about the possibly unfair overuse of "fair use" images in this article. If one image goes, I think this should be it. Yes, I suppose it shows some of the rhetorical devices, but you really have to click for the enlargement to see them; also, the caption is curiously tame ("A timely picture on a touchy subject!"). And while its appearance in the section preceding the one in which the film is discussed may be justifiable, it seems to scream "Poor organization!". I guess that you wanted to use a more obviously sleazy poster for a film with no redeeming qualities and couldn't find one; I suggest being patient in the hope that something will turn up later. -- Hoary 01:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait until I get some sort of legitimate response before zapping it, because I think it's properly illustrative of the idea. "Too many fair use" images is a very weak objection (need we look at KaDee Strickland or V for Vendetta (film) for much weaker uses?), and I'd rather figure out why before being aggressive on this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I figured out the differential. The 1965 year comes from when the mvoie was made. Babb didn't acquire the rights until 1970. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, but consider the following very coolly: What are these "rhetorical devices"? Does this poster illustrate Babb's approach or does it rather illustrate a low-budget film of an era in which Babb was a bit outdated? Does the illustration belong where it now is within the article (rather than in the next section), and if so, how can this best be shown? -- Hoary 03:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC) ..... PS Image:MomAndDad.jpg is far better. -- Hoary 03:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know what? I completely forgot about the Mom and Dad poster. Probably because I didn't upload it. Makes more sense, too. Adding. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She Shoulda Said No? She Shoulda Said "No!"? -- Hoary 11:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on the proper of the latter, the former claims 1970s in books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, do you mean "1970"? -- Hoary 12:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry. Early morning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Late night here. I'm about to turn in. Good night, and when I look at this again twelve or so hours from now I want to see perfection! -- Hoary 14:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states that he was born in Lees Creek and says that this is near Centerville, Montgomery County, Ohio. Lees Creek is not close to that Centerville at all [1]. The article also states that he was buried in Centerville, Ohio, but does not say which one. --- RockMFR 01:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, hmmm... Google Maps is showing another Centerville (possibly an old village) at that location.... researching now... --- RockMFR 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the latter. I believe we have the other one linked later in the article. Lees Creek is certainly his place of birth, i'll try to dig up something on the Centerville and get that reference for you right-quick. The burial at Lees Creek is absolutely correct, though, also from the gravestone photo. I'll be removing that tag, but leaving the birth one, as the grave reference at the end of that sentence is for the whole line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without a decent atlas on-hand, it's really difficult to figure out the geography properly. As far as I can tell, the article is refering to a "Centerville Cemetery" [2] which may or may not be named after a hamlet in that particular area. --- RockMFR 02:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm triple checking right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll leave this up to you. The first mention of Centerville in the Youth section was definitely incorrect. The burial location is really confusing. The engraving on the tombstone confuses me even more, as it says his life began in Centerville and ended in Lees Creek. --- RockMFR 02:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The gravestone is confusing, yes, I agree. Perhaps the problem, however, is the "near" word? Because it's less than an hour away, both in Montgomery County? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very familar with the geography of the region. It is definitely not refering to the Centerville in Montgomery County. Wilmington, Lees Creek, and this "Centerville Cemetery" are all in Clinton County. Also, Google Maps is showing a Centerville (in place of Lees Creek) at certain zoom levels. --- RockMFR 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Massachusetts - an hour is half the state for me, haha. It's certainly the one near Wilmington, per two books - the Friedman and the Schaefer, and Lees Creek is at least in the Briggs and Turan pieces. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've added a line to Centerville, Ohio to indicate that there is a place with that name near Lees Creek. --- RockMFR 02:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If im not mistaken, that photo has him wereing black face. Either that or its a really crappy photo. 69.250.130.215 14:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's over there, it didn't leave. It's simply in the prose, the German language section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kroger Babb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140208150126/http://www.loc.gov/film/nfr2005.html to http://www.loc.gov/film/nfr2005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061024194836/http://www.reason.com/0311/fe.jb.kroger.shtml to http://www.reason.com/0311/fe.jb.kroger.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kroger Babb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010231832/http://www.movienet.com/dirtyshame.html to http://www.movienet.com/dirtyshame.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]