Talk:Superman (1978 film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result:

Citation issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

GA from 2008. Nominating this because of the two refimprove tags. Numerous citation needed tags, and a failed verification tag. Bambots reports "Unsourced passages need footnotes ((citation needed)) (December 2015, February 2020), Dead external links ((dead link)) (September 2017), ... (February 2020), Failed verification (September 2022)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 March 2024 Betty Logan (talk) made a total of four reverts in under 4 hours. I reported this editor for WP:4RR (Four Revert Rule) but the ruling was "no violation."

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

However, the matter of the four reverts still remains, so, I will review them one by one, and in the spirit of collaboration, kindly ask the WP community (including Betty Long) for their input regarding them.

Revert #1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superman_(1978_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1216158809 at 12:38, 29 March 2024‎

Edit Summary: "Not in source from what I can tell"

Line in question: "The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars)"

The editor deleted the second part of the line: (over $250 million in 2023 dollars).

Revert #2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superman_(1978_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1216159757 at 12:48, 29 March 2024

Edit Summary: None.

The editor deleted the first part of the line: "The film required the largest budget in Hollywood up to that point at $55 million."

The source, as described in the footnote: Jerome, Richard (2023). "Chapter 2: Big-Screen Superhero". Life: Superman, The Comics, The Films, The Cape. New York, NY: Dotdash Meredith Premium Publishing. pp. 34–37. Retrieved March 12, 2024

The source, specifically, is a physical magazine that on pages 34-37 contains the information from which the above line is fashioned; however, the link (when one clicks on it) leads to an official on-line teaser produced by the editor of the magazine, as stated on the website: "The following is from the introduction to LIFE’s new special issue on Superman, available at newsstands and online." As such, it does not make reference to pp.34-37 and to the above line, unless one purchases the magazine to access that information; however, I can attest that that line is in the magazine since I have it in my hands.

Now, with that clarification, I ask the WP community if the magazine is a reliable source of information? Should the line stand? Should the link in the footnote be deleted to avoid confusion? And finally, should the revert be reverted?

Thanks again for your input!

MiztuhX (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is the net effect of MiztuhX's edits. This is the net effect of my edits. It was a sequence of four consecutive edits (which Wikipedia policy treats as a single edit) and took into account a concern expressed by MiztuhX on my talk page. As you can see, the net effect of my edits was to change two things: the first change removed the inflation adjusted budget because the figure was not in the accompanying source. Even if it can be properly sourced, I question whether it should be included, as I don't see much point in adding inflation adjusted figures just for the sake of adding inflation adjusted figures. Inflation adjusted figures are generally only added to articles to provide a basis of comparison, which doesn't seem to be the case here. The second change I initiated was to relocate the budget to the production section where the budget is already discussed, because I didn't see the point in repeating information and it didn't belong in the box-office section anyway. It should also be noted that MiztuhX
  WP:BRD. Most of MiztuhX's edits were left intact bar a couple of minor adjustments. Betty Logan (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Betty Logan: Before I begin, I reiterate my invitation to all Wikipedians to please read and participate in this forum, as it is only through your involvement that Wikipedia will become better.

I also would like to give notice to the WP community that within 24 hours I would like to place the following template ^{[disputed – discuss]} (barring any objections, of course) on the disputed line in the article in order to alert WP readers of the controvery, so as to provide a warning to not rely on this information, while it is under dispute; and to invite them to discuss it on the article Talk Page.

Now, with regards to Betty Logan (talk)'s repsonse in the last post: It appears that the editor is taking on a macroview perspective of the four edits, claiming an agrument that the ends justifies the means (IMHO); while I am taking on a mircoview interpretation of this event, reviewing the details of each step before reaching a conclusion.

At any rate, I believe it’s important to look at each individual edit to gain a better understanding of what transpired:

First, one must define what is a "revert" as opposed to an "edit." According to

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page–whether involving the same or different material–within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert (my highlight). Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior."

Thus, Betty Logan performed "a series of four consecutive edits that [undid] and/or manually [reversed] other editors' actions–whether in whole or in part, [and it] count[ed] as a revert... combined with other edit-warring behavior (see below)."

Thus, the editor misrepresented

Also, under: What Edit Warning Is, Betty Logan was obligated to: “When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page”

The editor left no edit summaries or notices on:

Edit# 2, Edit# 4, MiztuhX Talk Page|Talk Page, Talk:Superman (1978 film).

After Betty Logan made the two edits I contacted Betty Logan (talk) twice on 15:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC) and 16:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC). This was after the editor had already made two edits. My response was to alert the editor that I was in disagreement with the edits and to ask the editor to revert them. The editor's reply was to justify the edits in no uncertain terms, to not discuss them, and to continue to make two additional edits.[reply]

Since I had already expressed my disagreement to the edits, and Betty Logan continued nonetheless to make edits, Betty Logan was in violation of

The editor's response to my contact was gruff, as if the edits were not a matter of discussion and they were already a done deal: "I have relocated the budget to a more organic placement in the article (the box-office section is not the appropriate section for production elements). Specific claims need to be sourced, so if the inflation adjusted budget is not in the provided source, (bold mine) then it should not be included. In the future, if you wish to discuss article content please initiate a discussion on the article talk page so the discussion is archived in the article's history. Betty Logan (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2024"

One can see that Betty Logan was not interested in any collaboration or discussion while the editor made two arbitrary edits, considered a revert; instead, the editor appeared to not want any input, and issued edicts and expressed strong opinions about how the article should be organized.

At the same time, Betty Logan also stated that the information that I had added to the article was not in the source material and would be discarded, despite Betty Logan appearing to not have consulted the source (magazine) since I am privy to the source material and can attest to its content, which is the reason why I posted it.

Finally, the editor dismissed my attempt at conciliation and instructed me to direct my comments to the article talk page, when according to Wikipedia policy (above), it was the editor's responsibility to inititate discussion on my talk page or on the article talk page as this editor was the one who had initiated the process by making two edits, which became a "revert" upon my notification which the editor ignored, and by making two additional edits, in effect, made two additional "reverts" for a total of three reverts in a 24-hour period and in violation of

After dismissing my concerns as an editor, Betty Logan then promptly made two more edits; however, since the editor was aware that another editor was in disagreement, the editor should have immediately stopped reverting to discuss the issues on the appropriate pages but failed to do so

In my defense, I never once engaged in a revert because I did not want to start an edit war; perhaps I was being goaded into starting one. I don't know.

At any rate, in closing, I ask the editor, how did you know that the inflation-adjusted budget was "not in source from what I can tell"? Did you consult the magazine? Or did you take your action (edits, reverts, and not notifying or discussing this with anyone) despite being contacted after your second edit and without getting the facts, especially in light of the fact that you state in your User Talk:Betty Logan:Revision History Page that you: "Reverted spurious accusations. I removed the text the other editor objected to. I stand by the removal of the unsourced claim. The issue is resolved as far as I can see." By making this statement, you seem to be admitting that you unilaterally made all edits, reverts, moving of content without any collaboration, and not consulting a verified source, and making three reverts within 24 hours and violating

However, in the event that you did consult the magazine, how do you justify unilaterally moving the line to the Filming section? Please share your reasoning and the context for the sentence in the magazine with the WP public, so that all will know that the integrity of the article has not been tarnished. I sincerely hope that this was not a case of being a case of original research (which, I remind you, is also against WP policy

Thank you for the clarification,
````MiztuhX (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's way too long, please keep your comments concise so they're easier to read. Discussions on this talk page should be about the article, if you have an issue with user conduct please take it elsewhere. Indagate (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He already has: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive480#Betty_Logan_reported_by_MiztuhX_(Result:_No_violation). If this had been about any editor other than me I would have hat-noted it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Indagate (talk). I definitely agree with you that discussions on this talk page should be about the article. The contention seems to revolve around the source as described in the footnote of the article:

Jerome, Richard (2023). "Chapter 2: Big-Screen Superhero". Life: Superman, The Comics, The Films, The Cape. New York, NY: Dotdash Meredith Premium Publishing. pp. 34–37. Retrieved March 12, 2024

and the following line derived from the magazine:

The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars)

Betty Logan (talk) deleted it and moved it from the Box Office section to the Filming section, inserting the fragment (eventually costing $55 million) in the latter section. I would like to know the reason and the context she used to make her unilateral decision for placing the modified line in the Filming section in detriment (IMHO) of the article.

My question is the following: Did Betty Logan consult the magazine before making the four edits (or 3 reverts), as she has stated: "I stand by the removal of the unsourced claim."

I hope that is concise enough, and I welcome your comments and/or suggestions, Indagate (talk). Thanks again, MiztuhX (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, we're seriously getting our tails in knots over trying to add an inflation cost of the budget in 2023 dollars to this article? Why would we ever do that?! What it cost at the time of production is what should be listed. We don't just magically change or add on to the budget for inflation (which is an ever-changing concept). That is

WP:Original research from what I can tell, anyways. The only instance of 2023 in the source is "including the 1978 classic Superman: The Movie, starring the late Christopher Reeve, which marks its 45th anniversary in 2023." There is no mention or instance of $250 million in the source. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Trailblazer101 (talk). Nice to have you onboard and thank you for your contribution. The contention isn't really the info in the link; it's what's stated in the magazine, and whether it's right to modify it without first having consulted it. MiztuhX (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are citing the web version for this instance. Any citation for the physical print copy of a magazine needs to include a page number and, when it is often helpful, the exact quote in the citation. For this instance, we do not need to cite the physical version as it does not add anything new to what is relevant for this article, which is what the film's actual budget is at the time it was made. As I said earlier, we don't include inflated numbers of a film gross, just the same as we don't that for budgets.

placing larger importance on something that is a frivolous and minute detail. We as an encyclopedia do not need to and are not bound by any rules or laws of needing to contact a source about not using some of their information or when we put it in our own words, which is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to function. We got by the sources, though they don't control or dictate what we do. Even if you were to contact the magazine, the chances are highly unlikely that they would respond, let alone care, about whether such a minor detail is included on a Wikipedia article on a subject they have no direct involvement or affiliation with. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Trailblazer101 (talk), I'm not really sure what you are talking about, or if we are on the same wavelength, so I'm just going to summarize what I stated before.

As previously mentioned, the source of contention is not the web version but the magazine, the identifying details of which I have stated before and will summarize here again:

Jerome, Richard (2023). "Chapter 2: Big-Screen Superhero". Life: Superman, The Comics, The Films, The Cape. New York, NY: Dotdash Meredith Premium Publishing. pp. 34–37. Retrieved March 12, 2024

The line in question is: The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars)

As an answer to your question, please note that the source includes the exact page numbers where one could find the quote (pp. 34-37) in the magazine; in addition, the magazine also references the context, because remember: there is no text without context.

Finally, and just out of curiosity, do you have access to the magazine? Does Betty Logan (talk) have access to the magazine? You may have a fuller grasp of the content and a scholarly basis for criticism, if you did.

My contention is that if you do not have access to the source, how can you conclude that "it does not add anything new to what is in this article?" How can Betty Logan state: "I stand by the removal of the unsourced claim," if one has not reviewed the source? How can you assume the line is about "budget numbers" or "inflated grosses" when you do not know the context in which the line was written?

Finally, I'm still waiting to know the reasoning behind the line being modified and transferred to the Filming section without the source (magazine) being consulted. Maybe Trailblazer1 has an explanation, since none has been forthcoming from Betty Logan. MiztuhX (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand perfectly. We don't need to state what the budget is inflated for 2023 dollars. That is completely unnecessary and no one going here is going to look for what the budget inflated to to some random year. Just because the magazine included that does not mean we have to include it. I don't need nor want to access a print magazine just for an online discussion, though that does not prevent me or others from weighing in and determining a perspective from the facts presented. If you feel the context is important, then share it if it has not been adequately addressed. It is up to you to prove why something you want included is relevant or notable, and everything I've seen points to the inflated gross being irrelevant and oddly random. As I've said and I'll reiterate, we do not need to consult any source we use. I'm not sure where you got that from or why you are pushing for that. I cannot and will not speak on another editor's behalf, I can only do so for myself and I see no need in adding the inflated budget and see no problem with Betty's edits as they are constructive. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion, Trailblazer101 (talk), and I'm glad you understand perfectly because you had previously expressed confusion about finding page numbers and the exact quote in a citation.

Also, throughout your replies you jump between the pronouns "I" and "We" and it is confusing. When you say "we" do you mean Betty Lang and yourself, or are you speaking on behalf of Wikipedia, a group of editors, etc.?

Next, your opinion is that you're against using inflated dollars for budgets. Noted.

You said: "You (or "we") don't have to read, understand or see the context for such data in a magazine." Noted.

You said: "This one line (limited facts) does not prevent [you] or others from weighing in and determining a perspective on the [limited] facts presented." Check.

Now, I quote: " If you feel the context is important, then share it if it has not been adequately addressed. [I did] It is up to you to prove why something you want included is relevant or notable,[I did and it was reverted three times] and everything I've seen points to the inflated gross being irrelevant and oddly random [without checking the source and knowing the context].

I quote: "As I've said and I'll reiterate, we do not need to consult any source we use."

Who is "we?" Wikipedia is built on secondary sources.

I quote: "I cannot and will not speak on another editor's behalf, I can only do so for myself..." Who is "we?"

I quote: "[I] see no problem with Betty's edits as they are constructive." No. They have been disruptive.

Basically, I disagree with all your points, but I thank you nonetheless for your input.

Context does matter and it is the responsibility of all WP editors to use it in their editing.

And this quote of yours as you seem to be speaking for Wikipedia:

"We as an encyclopedia do not need to and are not bound by any rules or laws of needing to contact a source about not using some of their information or when we put it in our own words, which is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to function. We got by the sources, though they don't control or dictate what we do."

Please provide appropriate WP links to support your statements. Thank you,MiztuhX (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All this

stop feeding into this now as I see no point in discussing this further. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Trailblazer101 (talk), this is my final reply re: this topic and it is only to correct your misconceptions and to set the record straight because you consistenly failed to answer any of my questions (I still don't know who you were referring to when you referred to yourself as "we").

You are mistaken. Like I mentioned before, I did not make any edits, I never reverted anybody's edits, and I did not engage in any edit wars. Instead @Betty Lang: made two edits. Afterwards, I posted on this editor's Talk Page to express my disagreement. Although the editor was obligated by WP rules to post a notice on my talk page and on the article page (which the editor did not do) after making any kind of edit, I was the one to reach out to this editor first.

I requested the editor revert the edits. Instead, Betty Lang ignored my messages and made two more edits, which, due to having been already notified, can be classified as two more reverts, which bring the total to three reverts, a violation of

WP:3RR

. And to this day, Betty Lang has yet to voluntarily revert any of the edits or reverts that this editor has made unilaterally; however, that is fine because it is the Wikipedia community who will have the final say in the matter.

And yes, I started a discussion on this article talk page, of which you are but one opinion. Furthermore, I inform you that I will continue to press for inclusion of 2023 comparative budgets (and beyond) because I feel it is an important and relative subject, and I will continue to do my best to collaborate with Wikipedians to improve the Superman (1978) article for all to enjoy.

Happy travails, MiztuhX (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I have made this entry its own topic in the hope of using the article page for improving the article in a collaborative manner).MiztuhX (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indagate (talk), you had previously expressed a concern about discussions being focused on the article. Well, here is the opening sentence of the Filming Section that I would like some help on improving. It reads:

"Principal photography began on March 28, 1977, at Pinewood Studios for the Krypton scenes, budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point (eventually costing $55 million)."

The problems I have with it are that the subject and predicate don't match up. I mean, the subject talks about principal photography, Pinewood Studios, the Krypton scenes, but it doesn't mention the movie per se and it's important to mention the movie because the other half of the sentence talks about its budget.

The predicate reads: "... budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point (eventually costing $55 million)."

What cost $55 million? The photography, studio, Krypton scenes? I know it's implied that the article is talking about the movie, but it's not stated. And also who paid for the budget of the movie? Was it the Salkinds? Warner Bros? A conglomerate of international investors? The syntax doesn't follow; it's just poorly written copy. And the build-up to revealing that the film was the most expensive film ever made up to that point is really anti-climactic and pedestrian. Maybe it might be better suited to be placed elsewhere?

The original sentence was moved from the Box Office section and originally read: The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars).

Notable is that the placename "Hollywood" was deleted. I ask the Wikipedia gods, why was this done? This is crucial data that directly places the budget within the Hollywood sphere; granted, there may be other sources that name other international partners, contributors, studios, etc., and they can all be given credit for the budget if properly cited; however, this line from this magazine conclusively states that the budget of this movie was the largest in Hollywood history, which gives a critical context, as to place and time, and answers the questions as to what, when, and how much. In addition, it gives crucial context for the comparable budget number of $250,000,000 in 2023 dollar figures for budgets of movies made in Hollywood.

WP:NOR

; it's there in full-living color.

At any rate, let's leave the comparable budget number of $250 million in 2023 dollar figures out of the picture for now and concentrate on the beauty and magnitude of that statement. Then, try to figure out the rest of the riddle: Who? Why? How? Etc. in order to justify the insane $55 million budget and make the copy bright, snappy and informative.

Finally, there are problems with the citation, as it has confused some editors, as it serves as both a link to an official, informational website with some great copy and photographs, but winds up being an ad to purchase the magazine online or in a store.

https://www.life.com/arts-entertainment/superman-the-first-and-foremost-superhero/

Deleting the link would be a disservice for fans, but there are others who will claim that the website has to provide all info that the magazine does in order for it to be credible, which is kind of incredulous because the website states up front that you can buy the magazine online or in a store to read the full article... At any rate, in my opinion, it's not worth the headaches; just drop the link.

I'm open for any takers who want to re-write and/or find a new home for, like baby Kal-El, this forlorn sentence.

Good luck,

MiztuhX (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For obvious reasons, I am trying to limit my interaction with this editor. This was his edit, and this was mine. As you can see, I accepted his edit for the most part. In the four consecutive edits I made I did take account of the comments he left on my talk page, up to the point I felt they had merit. My edits were entirely consistent with the
  WP:BRD process, which permits bold edits to be made unilaterally, and also for reverts to be undertaken unilaterally. The administrator who reviewed the report that MiztuhX filed clearly didn't think there was a case for me to answer to. It appears from subsequent discussion, the adjusted figure appears in the hardcopy source, but not the online excerpt he linked to his citation. This seems to be the primary cause of the confusion, but generally I would advise editors to not add links to citations that don't corroborate the claim. Links are supposed to make verification easier, but in this case it created the impression that the claim was unsourced. As I have explained earlier in this discussion, I don't see the point of including an inflation adjusted figure for the budget: the context of the figure (i.e. that it was the largest budget ever at the time) conveys the key information. I also don't accept that it provides us with a comparable modern-day equivalent: $250 million, while still pricey, is not comparable to the $400–500 million budgets of today's most expensive films such as the Avengers and Pirates of the Caribbean films (see List of most expensive films#Most expensive films (adjusted for inflation). As for the relocation of the budget information, then it clearly belongs in the production section in some capacity because that is what it relates to. Some film articles do provide budget information in the box-office section, but that is usually to support sourced commentary about the film's financial performance, which is not the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

On 03:11, 31 March 2024, under the heading Revert#1 & Revert#2 and sub-heading Good morning/afternoon/evening, Wikipedians, I made the following announcement:

"I also would like to give notice to the WP community that within 24 hours I would like to place the following template [disputed – discuss] (barring any objections, of course) on the disputed line in the article in order to alert WP readers of the controvery, so as to provide a warning to not rely on this information, while it is under dispute; and to invite them to discuss it on the article Talk Page."

No objections were noted.

At 21:47, 2 April 2024 I placed the disputed-discuss tag on the article.

It was undid at 01:56, 3 April 2024‎ by Betty Logan (talk).

I reverted at 03:26, 3 April 2024‎ with the following edit summary:

"Concerns about the contextual accuracy of line that differs substantially from a previous form." based on the WP Template:Disputed Inline [1] rationale: 1. When there are reliable sources supporting two or more different claims; 2. A question about reliable sourcing for the statement/fact at issue; and 3. At least one editor believes there is no question that the statement has a verifiability problem.

Also, from WP Accuracy Dispute: [2] "Ambiguously worded statements that allow for multiple interpretations due to grammatical issues or subjective phrasing."

I also posted a notice on Betty Logan's talk page to join the discussion.

I invite interested Wikipedians to discuss on this page. Thanks! MiztuhX (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have twice had to revert MiztuhX's inappropriate misuse of the "disputed" tag. The citation is quite clearly used to source the $55 million budget, and this was the source that was added to the article by MiztuhX to source the budget. The guidelines covering the use of this tag can be viewed at Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement and are summarised here:

Several factors can prompt concerns about the accuracy of a statement, including:

• Implausible information, without providing adequate references;
• Information that is particularly difficult to verify;
• Highly detailed information subject to frequent changes, rendering its accuracy variable over time;
• Reference to sources that are outdated or whose reliability has been subsequently questioned;
• Contributions from users with a history of providing inaccurate information on the subject matter;
• Ambiguously worded statements that allow for multiple interpretations due to grammatical issues or subjective phrasing; or
• Existence of reliable sources that corroborate divergent claims.

The tag is used to specifically challenge the interpretation of a claim in respect to the source. The tag does not pertain to where that information should be located in the article, which does not relate to verifiability. Moving the claim from the box-office section to the production section does not impact on the factual accuracy of the claim, regardless of how much MiztuhX might disagree with said re-location of the claim. Trailblazer101 do you have an opinion on the appropriateness of using the tag in this context? I feel like we are moving into tendentious editing territory here. Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it before where users in disagreement with the community tend to make long messages and multiple discussions to further infuse their point without reason or compromise, and if I've learned anything from those situations, it is that more often than not, these users cannot be reasoned or negotiated with, and that, for the good of the article, it would be within the best interest not to entertain these distractions much longer. These attempts to

WP:BLUDGEON

the process and misuse tags all because of an inflation of a budget and a randomly-perceived notion the sources need to be contacted for our use on Wikipedia is absurd and veering on rather disruptive and unconstructive territory, especially for the perceived targeting of Betty alone for making proper constructive edits which were found to have no violation of 3RR. The $55 million budget, as it is currently sourced and how it was sourced beforehand, is factually and reliably correct and should never have been in dispute in the first place. The 2023 inflated budget mention, or lack thereof, never should have been added to the article in the first place, hence why it was removed. If anything, if that inflated budget were still in the article, that would be what is disputed and would warrant such a tag, not the other way around.

@

WP:MOVEON, which I see was suggested to you by an admin on your talk. In spite of this, you still persist in performing the same maneuvers which have led nowhere in convincing the community of why what you want should be included, and have in fact enforced the opposite is true. It isn't worth this much of a fuss over something that has never been a practice on Wikipedia. These attempts are rather frivolous and counterintuitive and counterproductive to what this article's focus is, let alone unnecessary and irrelevant. No one cares about what an amount of money from 1978 was worth in 2023. I have now issued you a formal warning on your talk for your behavior and attitudes here, so I do hope you take some time to take a step back and rethink your actions and process before continuing as you have. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Good afternoon, Trailblazer101 (talk), my first response is to assume good faith, a core WP policy.

Second, I have attempted to reason and compromise. I have tried different ways to reach consensus. I've invited other Wikipedians to share their opinion. I've offered to delete the link in the citation that is causing the confusion. I've set up a new section called "Improving Filming Secion" as an outlet for editors to improve the section in dispute.

But you and Betty Logan (talk) have not responded to any of my compromises or answered any of my relevant arguments regarding why I used a dispute-inline tag. If I am wrong, show me how you have tried to compromise.

Instead, both of you have reverted my edits, made veiled threats about edit warring, and engaged in

WP:IGNOREYOU

: "ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors."

Trailblazer101, you said you warned me. That's fine. I warned you, too. And I said to agree to disagree is fine, too. (and that is the advice another Administrator I spoke to gave me) You two are the ones engaging in edit warring, causing disruptions, not compromising, not moving on, and not improving the article.

Also, Trailblazer101, you reverted my dispue-inline edit twice knowing there was a discussion regarding this very issue on the article talk page. Instead of dealing with the issue at hand on the article page, you chose to be disruptive and edit war. This is also a violation of

WP:3RR

.

From what I can tell, you both seem obsessed with defending inflated budget numbers, to the detriment of all things, although I have said in the Improving Filming Section, to set that aside and concentrate on confirming the accuracy and context of the source when it was modified and changed from the Box Office Section to the Filming Sections. But you gave no reply, and instead insisted on continue to argue and edit war.

Since that did not appease you. I remind you both about

WP:OP

: "No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say."

So, I ask you both to take a step back, take a deep breath, and think about ways to compromise and step away a bit from your entrenched positions, and assume good faith. I am not the enemy.

Regards, MiztuhX (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • I had to revert Betty Lang's reverts and I have advised her to be aware of
    WP:REHASH
    previous disputes.

But I will address Betty Lang's concerns again (and I apologize to other Wikipedians who are not interested in these type of discussions):

1. The dispute-inline tage refers to the whole line created by Betty Lang when she unilaterally modified the previous line in the Box Office Section that read: "The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars)," modified it herself without any consultation, and moved it unilaterally to the Filming section as: "Principal photography began on March 28, 1977, at Pinewood Studios for the Krypton scenes, budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point (eventually costing $55 million." This unilateral edit affected tone, accuracy, syntax, etc., many components that don't complement each other, effectively becoming some hybrid creation encompassing different areas and asserting new connections, that have not been properly verified and/or sourced.

Also complicating matters is that the citation has two sources: a link that leads to a website and a magazine.

Each contains different information in different contexts. One cannot just "cherry-pick" the information one desires without noting the context. This is the reason for the dispute-inline tag explained previously. There is a multipicity of interpretations for this quote. By just concentrating on the $55 million budget number, the editor, according to WP Accuray and Disputed Inline is "degrading its reliability as a reference source" and is "misrepresent[ing] reliable sources."

For example, the original quote from the magazine was: ""The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars)"

She changed it to just "(eventually costing $55 million)," disregarding all the other information, and substantially changing the meaning and intention of the line as a whole, and instead "cherry-picking" th information that only she deemed important and relative, thus effectively distorting the quoted text and violating Disputed Inline and Disputed Statement sections listed above.

Now, in the website that the footnote links to (which is only the introduction) the article in the magazine, it only superficially glosses over the budget, with such general copy as:

"Christoper Reeve in 1978’s Superman: The Movie, which was the most expensive film ever made ($55 million)" and "Christopher Reeve in the 1978 movie Superman; its $55 million budget made it the most expensive movie ever at the time of its release." (Both are rehashes, and used solely as captions under two photos, and are not part of the body of the article or subject to any serious analysis), which if included and not challenged, will be a grave disservice to the Wikipedia reader who deserves an accurate and true compilation of reputable source material.

I previously stated to delete the link an just leave the magazine as the definitive source due to its more scholarly, substantive content.

MiztuhX (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that, as sourced in the infobox of the article, the budget is listed as $55 million by Box Office Mojo, which is a reliable source. I have included that source in with the budget claim and adjusted the wording. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trailblazer101 (talk),

I don't understand why you would unilaterally add a citation from Box Office Mojo and adjust the wording without discussing it first on the article page. The line was currently being disputed on the article talk page and mentioned in the edit summary history page.

Your revert was at 16:45, 3 April 2024‎ and you posted the notice above at 16:00, 3 April 2024‎ about 45 minutes earlier. Looks like you only gave 45 minutes for editors to comment.

I would have advised you not to revert and just discuss on the article talk page. But, of course, you are free to do whatever you'd like to do.

Your edit summary reads: "Consensus is not by votes, and has been against your changes" while the issue was being discussed. Also, I was unaware that there was a time limit for these type of discussions. Could you please enlighten me about that, too, linking to WP policy?

Furthermore, I was unaware of any such consensus vote having taken place, which, according to you, was the basis for making your revert. Can you please provide a link to the vote?

At any rate, please note that

WP:EW

states: "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers."

I kindly suggest you review

WP:POINT; but it is only a suggestion. Thank you, MiztuhX (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I am entitled to make a

WP:Good faith. Something being disputed (even though you misused that template) does not prevent editors from constructively editing the contents in a different way. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

There was nothing

WP:POINT

. I never targeted anybody. I am only trying to make the article better. You say that you "improved" the wording (that's yet to be determined); however, the key here is that you did not discuss this with anybody, especially since you knew the line was being disputed, however right or justified you felt. I suggest you're letting your feelings get the better of you.

Like I mentioned before and restate, per

WP:OWN

: "All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by the Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say."

Please... review the above WP links I shared with you above. Take a break. Rest easy. I won't revert your revert, or escalate this anymore. Regards, MiztuhX (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that I use logic above all else with all of my contributions and set my personal feelings aside, and that is no different here. I am not disrupting the article or acting on anyone else's behalf. The $55 million budget is reliably sourced, and I ensured the BOM source was used consistently. This figure really shouldn't be an issue here, nor should the wording as it currently stands is the most accurate per the sources cited. The inflated budget was contested by multiple editors, so that is not being included unless further points convince editors otherwise. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the non-reliability of the $55 million-dollar budget is legendary. Here is an article that deals with it: https://www.slashfilm.com/1161245/the-budget-for-richard-donners-superman-was-a-constant-point-of-contention/

Furthermore, In a 2016 interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Donner revealed that the Salkinds stonewalled him every step of the way:

"They never ever told me what the budget was. I had no idea what I was spending. I was making a movie and they wouldn't tell me the budget. So there was no way I knew what I was spending. Sometimes I'd authorize something and nothing would be there; they would just arbitrarily cancel it. They didn't want anyone to know where that money went, I guess."

So, I would consider the $55 million dollar with a grain of salt.

In addition, Box Office Mojo, for what it's worth, is not listed at

WP:RSP and is not considered a reliable/perennial source. It is owned by IMDb which is listed as being "Generally Unreliable"; I don't know if it's a reflection of Box Office Mojo, but those are "the facts." MiztuhX (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Captions do not have to be sourced if all they do is reiterate sourced commentary. There are now five sources in the article covering the claim that the film cost $55 million to make, and that it was the most expensive film up to that point. If you have sources that contradict that claim in any capacity, then bring them to the discussion and permit us to review them. At the moment I do not see anything contrary to that claim, and therefore there is no basis for "disputing" the claim. You have not even said why you dispute it. So far, all you have objected to is the relocation of the claim to the production section and the removal of the adjusted figure. You are entitled to challenge those edits, but they do not amount to a challenge of the veracity of the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree with your reasoning, but I’ll agree to your terms as a way to extend an olive branch. Let’s review how the budget number is mentioned in each source:

1). Lost Illusions: American Cinema in the Shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, 1970–1979. Vol. 9 of History of the American Cinema, Richard Koszarski. Scribner. p. 58. “ (Acceptable).

2). Superman: The Movie (1978) – Articles". Turner Classic Movies. Archived from the original on July 24, 2019. Retrieved April 26, 2012. (Acceptable.)

3). Box Office Mojo - Borderline/ Not a reliable source.

4). Duffell, Peter (2010). Playing Piano in a Brothel: Memoirs of a Film Director. BearManor Media. ISBN 978-1-59393-612-9 (No page number.. Rejected)

5). Jerome, Richard (2023). "Chapter 2: Big-Screen Superhero". Life: Superman, The Comics, The Films, The Cape. New York, NY: Dotdash Meredith Premium Publishing. pp. 34–37. Retrieved March 12, 2024. (Rejected - no access to magazine)

6). https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/78146/16-super-facts-about-superman "14. Donner and the Salkinds constantly fought over Superman's budget: "As production on both films continued, tension developed between Donner, the Salkinds, and producer Pierre Spengler. Donner was attempting an unprecedented comic book movie feat, and according to him, the producers constantly urged him to spend less while never actually telling him what he was allowed to spend. The Salkinds always claimed the film was over schedule and over budget, while Donner claims that he never actually had a schedule or a budget.

“They’d say, ‘You can’t do this,’ but I would have no alternative and they wouldn’t show me the budget. They never ever told me what the budget was. I had no idea what I was spending. I was making a movie and they wouldn’t tell me the budget,” Donner said. “So there was no way I knew what I was spending. Sometimes I’d authorize something and nothing would be there; they would just arbitrarily cancel it. They didn’t want anyone to know where that money went, I guess.”

7). From the New York Times: "THE LIFE AND EXCEEDINGLY HARD TIMES OF SUPERMAN:" "According to Mr. Salkind, the first two Superman movies have cost $109 million. He has, at various other times, estimated the cost as $120 million or $140 million. This is the catastrophe of the situation, said Mr. Salkind, that movies that made so much money are still in the red." https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/movies/the-life-and-exceedingly-hard-times-of-superman.html

8.) Superheroes Every Day: Superman 1.3: Brando and the Money https://superheroeseveryday.com/2021/09/08/superman-1-3/ : "The two Superman films, to be lensed simultaneously, will ring up a super budget of $25-30,000,000. Of that figure, $2,700,000, goes to Marlon Brando who plays papa to “Superman”. (Variety, Dec 27, 1976)" and "In the end, of course, nobody knows how much Brando actually received, because the Salkinds never produced anything like a credible accounting of how much money they spent on the picture. And if nobody knew how much they spent, then they couldn’t calculate how much was profit, so everybody who had a percentage of the movie had to take the Salkinds to court to get anything out of them. Ultimately, Brando’s lawyers and the Salkinds’ lawyers negotiated a settlement of some unknown amount, and then the Salkinds cut Brando’s character out of Superman II so they didn’t have to pay him the money that they owed him for that picture, either."

I want to dispute the $58 million budget because it is simply not accurate. And since you reverted my edits, I ask you to please re-revert them, and add the dispute-in line tag so we can discuss this rationally, announce to other readers to come to article talk page to do the same, and hopefully assist to write a better article. Much thanks, MiztuhX (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the figure in the article is $55 million, not $58 million. Secondly, if you do not believe that the $55 million budget is accurate why did you make this edit? Betty Logan (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was accurate withib that context; but now I see the situation was much more complicated on many different levels, which the article doesn't address. MiztuhX (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing a wider conflict between the claim in the article and the figures above. The $25–30 million figure comes from 1976 before the film started shooting. This is very likely what the budget started out at, because nobody set out to spend $100 million on making a film in the 1970s. The Salkinds ran out of money during production and had to stall Superman 2, and I don't see the higher figures contradicting that. I don't object to the lower figures being in the article but they were invariably not the final cost of the film. The Salkind estimates are more interesting: $109 million is consistent with $55 million for the first film, and the reported $54 million for the second one. I am not aware of the higher figures and what they relate to. Moreover, these relate to the combined cost of both films, and it is not possible to derive the individual budgets from them. I have no objections to including these other figures in the article, but so far you have not presented any alternative figures for the budget of this film. Neither do I see why having this information in the production section (where budgets are normally covered) rather than the box-office section creates a factual conflict. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate that I'm providing sources to advocate for the placement of the dispute-inline tag in the Filming section to alert other editors about the current discussion. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy editing on WP, but it would be helpful if you replace the dispute-inline tag since it's a lot of work for one editor to review books and on-line articles looking for arcane budget numbers from a movie that premiered 46 years ago! Also, I don't care about putting the line back in the Box Office section; leaving it where it is is fine by me for the moment.

Your most salient point (imho) is: "Moreover, these relate to the combined cost of both films, and it is not possible to derive the individual budgets from them." Let's remember that Superman - The Movie was budgeted for the filming of two movies (it states so in the intro to the article: "It was decided to film both Superman and its sequel Superman II (1980) simultaneously...), which is one reason why it was presented as having the highest budget up to that point in Hollywood history. So, what you are asking for (getting an individualized budget for either movie may not be possible, especially in light of Richard Donner's claim that the Salkinds never told him what the budget was. But if we can find it, I am open to including it.

At any rate, "The Hollywood Reporter," which according to

WP:RSP

, has "the highest rating of being generally reliable in its area of expertise [and] [t]here is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures. in its review of Superman dated 10 Dec 1978 stated:

"The cost of the production, rumored to be over $40 million for the two films, is fully evident on the screen."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/superman-1978-review-1235059378/

Furthermore, in the New York Times article date 14 June 1981 (linked above), even Ilya Salkind gives contradicting budget numbers: "According to Mr. Salkind, the first two Superman movies have cost $109 million. He has, at various other times, estimated the cost as $120 million or $140 million. This is the catastrophe of the situation, said Mr. Salkind, that movies that made so much money are still in the red.

And the cherry on the cake (from the same NY Times article): "Mr. Salkind's figures have been challenged in suits filed by Marlon Brando, Mario Puzo, and Richard Donner. In part, these suits contend that Ilya Salkind and his father, Alexander, a movie promoter and producer, fraudulently schemed to deprive them of their share of the revenues. In addition, Los Angeles theater chain owner William Forman filed civil lawsuits alleging that more than $20 million was misappropriated from him by Alexander Salkind to make a series of movies and to buy the movie rights to Superman. Eventually Alexander Salkind settled with Mr. Forman; Mr. Salkind told a reporter the settlement was $23.4 million."

I am not a lawyer nor an acccountant, and I don't know what to make of this mess, but if anybody wants to know more about these legal shenanigans, here is a link to Man of Steal: https://superheroeseveryday.com/2022/01/18/superman-1-97/ Extra points if you can figure out how it relates to the budget of Superman, but I think it's something akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul.

At any rate, due to the wide number of sources with divergent budget numbers, especially after the premiere of the movie, it calls into question the legitimacy and/or accuracy of the $55 million budget number and also justifies the replacement of the dispute-inline tag, as I suspect that this is only the tip of the iceberg, and more boots need to be on the ground to research this. But if you have any claims or sources to the contrary, please send them my way as I am open to looking at them. But as you can see, it's a legal morass. Thank you, MiztuhX (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to tag the claim, and there won't be one because the tag is not applicable. The claim matches the source, and the source is reliable. The dispute isn't about the figure, it is about me removing the adjusted figure and relocating the claim to the production section. That is what you objected to, and that is why you initiated this discussion. You added the figure and source to the article, and my edit did not impact on those two aspects, so it is disingenuous of you to suggest I am also imposing the $55 million figure on the article. If you have found alternative figures in other reliable sources, then the appropriate course of action is to incorporate them into the article, rather than tagging legitimately sourced claims. Betty Logan (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – As an outside observer with no skin in the game, let me first start out by saying to
  WP:WALLOFTEXT. Although it is sometimes necessary to be thorough, this can't happen with every reply if you expect to invite outside participation; others are going to take one look and shy away. Your last reply is an improvement, although still very long in the tooth. Moving on...

  Going by Betty's last response, the original objection had to do with placement of the claim and removal of the adjusted figure. Has the focus now shifted elsewhere, and has that original issue been resolved? Can we at least clear that up before moving on? I agree with placing the widely-accepted production cost in the Production section of the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks for your suggestion. I'll type shorter responses! And you're right about the original issue (I hope; correct me if I'm wrong), and I've mentioned I have no problem that the $55 million budget be placed in the Production (Filming) section. The issue was Betty Lang's deletion of the original line, except for the budget, and the

  WP:VERIFICATION

  problems it created. My original line read: "The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars)." It now reads: "Principal photography began on March 28, 1977, at Pinewood Studios for the Krypton scenes, budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point, which was $55 million," with three citations.

None of the citations mention anything about the subject, and none place the budget in context as written by Betty Lang and later Trailblazer101. Plus, the book "Playing Piano in a Brothel," another citation, doesn't have a page number. The last citation, Box Office Mojo, was just added the other day by Trailblazer101. As the editor who made the edit, Betty Lang bears the

WP:PROVEIT: " All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The source I used covered my whole line. Anyway, long story short, the sources don't jibe with her new edit. She claims it's just related to the budget number; but it's so much more; it's about the contextual prose and whether the sources support this whole new statement she created. MiztuhX (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the explanation. It does appear that the conflict is a bit more trivial than it first appeared. The article has essentially been restored to the

WP:STATUSQUO version as it existed prior to any recent edits to that section, with the exception of the BOM citation and the phrase: "which was $55 million". Your contention is that the first half of the sentence, which covers principal photography, is not supported by the cited sources, correct? If so, we probably should break these statements apart and slap a {{citation needed}} tag where appropriate instead of outright removal. Then the difference in wording – yours vs theirs – becomes a trivial matter as long as we agree on the core aspect that $55 million is a verifiable claim.

So in a nutshell, it could look something like this: "Principal photography began on March 28, 1977, at Pinewood Studios for the Krypton scenes.<sup>[citation needed]</sup> The film was budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point, which was $55 million." Of course, the second sentence would be followed by agreed upon citations and could still be modified further if needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I just noticed another instance of an inflated figure was also added earlier, this one for a 2016 estimate. As such, I have also removed that from the Box office section as that is, again,

add them into the article, rather than adding pesky tags without actually doing the work to cite the claims in question. We could also adjust the budget wording to, say: "The film was budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point, and its final budget was reported to be $55 million." I think that may quell some concerns on that front. Though, please, find and add more sources to verify the information in the article as opposed to removing it or just leaving a tag behind. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I don't prefer to leave tags myself, but I always advise other editors that it's best to leave one as opposed to outright removal. It's also helpful to drop a note on the article talk page as well. This gives editors that frequent the article time to fix if you aren't able (or willing) to locate the proper sourcing. It also has the added bonus that someone else passing by that just happened to stumble across the article may be able to fix it as well. Tags don't always burden the regulars. GoneIn60 (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "things just got out of hand" to quote Doctor Strange, because of this now: [3] I don't think reporting Betty and I for perceived edit warring is a constructive way to handle these situations. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By March 28, 1977, I do not think the producers had an idea that the budget would balloon to $55 million. 14 months later, by May 26, 1978 the film had a budget in the lower range between $32 and $37 million and an upper range of $40-$45 million dollars, according to producer Alexander Salkind. So, it's premature to be talking about the most expensive budget in history at this juncture. https://www.nytimes.com/1978/05/26/archives/at-the-movies-costs-of-making-superman-go-up-up-and-away.html MiztuhX (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, further modification can still happen to the second sentence. If we want to remove "budgeted" and instead go with something closer to the language you proposed, "The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million", that's a relatively small change that I would still deem trivial. Although there's a subtle difference, it's not vastly different than the language that exists now. The overall point though is that the first sentence shouldn't have been removed without giving editors time to find a necessary source, if that's part of what you're contesting here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What he is contesting keeps changing, which makes the dispute very difficult to resolve. I'm not sure I even know what the dispute is, anymore. This discussion is impenetrable for a third-party editor coming in cold. IMO the discussion needs to be closed, and MiztuhX should initiate separate discussions for each issue he still seeks to challenge. The issue of the tag should be dropped as well, because we have spent more time discussing the tag than the underlying issue. Betty Logan (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Betty. Yes, it doesn't appear there are any major disputes left to discuss. It seems to be down to a very minor change with the way the budget is introduced, which I'm happy to discuss further if the OP really feels the need to continue. GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]