Talk:Wonder Woman (2017 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The film logo (also, in new in this)

I never really created not modified a wiki page, but I'm quite excited for the next wonder woman/DC universe and I thought that it will be cool, now that it has been released, the logo for the film. Niko992 (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have the logo for the film? It would be great if you uploaded it here. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think he is referring to this logo which is for BvS, not this film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:World War I films?

What justifies putting this in Category:World War I films? -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of the film takes place during WWI. LadyofShalott 14:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add

This image featuring Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman (in the foreground), Connie Nielsen as Queen Hippolyta, Robin Wright (on the far right) as General Antiope, and Lisa Loven Kongsli (on the far left) as Menalippe. --Atvica (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

United States Air Force?

Hi there. There was no such thing as the independent "United States Air Force" until 1947, well after both World War I and World War II were over. This movie is set during WWI, and during that time, the aviation branch of the U.S. Army was known as the "U.S. Army Air Service." Thanks. 2601:CB:8080:6EF:98CC:1874:596D:7AAA (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wonder Woman & Ares siblings

In the characters descriptions, shouldn't it be mentioned that Wonder Woman & Ares are half-sister/half-brother to each other? DCTrinity (talk) 1:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter reveal's Wonder Woman's actual budget

Wonder Woman budget revealed to be $150 million: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/complex-gender-politics-wonder-woman-movie-1008259. Hope we can add this into the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.19.82 (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2017

CHANGE CHARACTER DESCRIPTION FOR DAVID THEWLIS FROM ARES TO SIR PATRICK MORGAN. The film hasn't yet been released and this has spoiled the movie already! Sunetro (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

We do not avoid spoilers in our articles. --Izno (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wonder Woman censorship in Lebanon controversy

Would that be possible to include the issue of banning Wonder Woman from showing in Lebanon in the article as it featured an headlines due to the leading actress, Gal Gadot as a Israeli had something to do with political turmoil between Lebanon and Israel? Saiph121 (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. That seemed like a dubious reason -- Natalie Portman's films are not banned there.[1] It seems like WP:SPECULATION (sourced or not)) that it was only (or perhaps mostly) a result of the lead actress's nationality. Best wait for more clarification. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wonder-woman-gal-gadot-on-israel-gaza-israeli-actresss-pro-idf-stance-causes-controversy-9643412.html Probably because Natalie Portman wasn't (redacted), but regardless the states banning the film have not explicitly pointed to her extreme political positions as reasons for banning the film, it is indeed speculation at this point. Revrant (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"her extreme political positions" how is anything that she has said "extreme"?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic (or, in this case, a tangential aspect of a fragment of the topic). - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I have redacted your controversial claim about a living person which goes well beyond the actual statement in the source you have provided. If you feel the statement is somehow necessary for this discussion (hint: it isn't), please discuss the issue at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard first. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wonder Woman breaks records in the Philippines

Wonder Woman has broken the Philippines' 2017 box office record for highest earning non-holiday opening day, according to Francis Soliven, general manager of Warner Bros Philippines. It earned P48.39 million on its first day in cinemas, June 1. It beat the previous record holder, Bill Condon's Beauty and the Beast, which starred Emma Watson and Dan Stevens. Beauty and the Beast earned P47 million on its opening day in the Philippines.

Source [2] jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"with many critics calling it the best DCEU film"

This feels like an understatement; "with many critics calling it the first good DCEU film" would be more accurate. The two cited sources do support the current description more literally, but they point out that this film has received overwhelmingly positive reviews, while the previous two were largely negative. If a source shows up that explicitly states what the Independent and the Hollywood Reporter both heavily imply, that should probably be subbed in in their place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

That's unnecessary additional information. "The best DCEU film" is sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.73.214 (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

Please change David Thewlis' role from Ares to Sir Patrick.

Maybe something like this: David Thewlis as Sir Patrick: Sir Patrick Morgan, a speaker for peace on the Imperial War Cabinet who allies himself with Diana and Steve. He is later revealed to be the treacherous son of Zeus and half-brother of Diana, based on the Greek mythological god of War.

The wikipedia article stating David Thewlis' role affects what is seen on google. This will spoil the movie for many people who google the Wonder Woman cast: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/06/02/searching_wonder_woman_on_google_spoils_david_thewlis_character_in_the_new.html

Please consider other moviegoers, what if your favorite twist from your favorite film was spoiled before you even watched it for the first time?

I saw the previous request was denied, and I completely understand that you don't avoid spoilers in wiki articles, but this doesn't just affect wiki, it affects anyone who wants to Google the Wonder Woman cast before they see the movie. Plus, by saying he is Ares in the description doesn't remove the spoiler anyway, it just makes it safer for those who want to Google the cast. It's not just affecting the wiki page and my suggestion doesn't even remove the spoiler, it just hides it better, so please consider the change.

DiacetylmorphineHydrochloride (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia does not remove spoilers, regardless of what effects it has on Google. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

Please change David Thewlis' role from Ares to Sir Patrick.

Maybe something like this: David Thewlis as Sir Patrick: Sir Patrick Morgan, a speaker for peace on the Imperial War Cabinet who allies himself with Diana and Steve. He is later revealed to be the treacherous son of Zeus and half-brother of Diana, based on the Greek mythological god of War.

The wikipedia article stating David Thewlis' role affects what is seen on google. This will spoil the movie for many people who google the Wonder Woman cast: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/06/02/searching_wonder_woman_on_google_spoils_david_thewlis_character_in_the_new.html

Please consider other moviegoers, what if your favorite twist from your favorite film was spoiled before you even watched it for the first time? DiacetylmorphineHydrochloride (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia contains spoilers. Ironically, you spoiled the movie for me with the above. Anyway, people shouldn't be Googling the cast of the film if they don't want to know the cast of the film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

"Anyway, people shouldn't be Googling the cast of the film if they don't want to know the cast of the film." Wait, what?? People can't google the cast if they want to know the names of the actors without getting spoilers? Looking up the cast doesn't necessarily mean you want to spoil character revelations, you just want to know the name of the actor that you've recognized before. That's the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiacetylmorphineHydrochloride (talk • contribs) 03:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

By a long-standing, clear consensus, Wikipedia contains spoilers.

If you disagree with WP:SPOILER, you won't be able to overturn it here. I'd suggest the Village Pump. Expect a long, difficult struggle. Avoiding spoilers would mean we could not function as an encyclopedia and discuss the plot of any movie that is a sequel to another film (spoiling the first film's plot), the central point Citizen Kane, any of the main action of Romeo and Juliet, the central tenants of Christianity (lest we spoil the plots of the gospels), the fate of the Apollo 13 mission (the plot of Apollo 13), etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We discuss all of those things. Removing those topics would change what Wikipedia is. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

Under "Cast", Information about David Thewlis' character is in the middle of Connie Nielsen's information, rather than on its own line. Put David Thewlis' information on his own line. 47.55.241.103 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Already done – Train2104 (t • c) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Plot

Where does "wealthy entrepreneur" come from? I got the impression she worked/had an office at the Louvre. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence is correct now - it begins:

In present-day Paris, Diana Prince, curator for the Louvre's Department of Antiquities, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring by a redlink editor

I have invited User:JetChained to discussion here to discuss his edit-warring to re-insert his WP:SYNTH analysis, written in a magazine-y WP:TONE with WP:POV and WP:PUFFERY. Two editors so far have been reverting this inappropriate edits.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

User:JetChained has continued to add his contentious SYNTH essaying. He's at five reverts, I believe. reporting to W:3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

Under the Release section, in the controversies section, The line "Some boys and men were unhappy with the "women-only" screenings held at Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in Austin" seems a bit political/sexist. It should probably be reworded to something like in the CNN article (reference 129) "some male moviegoers aren't happy about some scheduled women-only screenings of the film" 72.201.46.123 (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, our version is rather tame compared to the New York Times version, which is from after two of the screenings took place (and more were scheduled), rather than CNN's report from earlier on with one scheduled and the film not out yet. If anything, our "unhappy" is too soft.

The New York Times version reads, "New of the women-only limitation set off a storm of virtual tantrums among some boys and men." The Washington Post article (also early on) has the men "flipped out" and the theater responding to "the wrath of trolls". From where I'm sitting, it seems irrelevant whether those complaining are "moviegoers" or not (which we really don't know) and entirely on-point that those flipping out turned out to be, as sourced, "boys and men". - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it's described as "virtual tantrums" and "the wrath of trolls" show that those sources shouldn't be used, including the condescending quote "boys and men". It's best to remove the "boys and men" part and replace it with some: "Some were unhappy with..." because the objection wasn't limited to men obviously. Here's some sources that say is wasn't just boys and men, including one that quoted a female objection - https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/27/women-only-screenings-wonder-woman http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/wonder-woman-womenonly-screening-slammed-as-sexist-and-wrong-a3549541.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/26/women-only-showings-of-wonder-woman-at-alamo-drafthouse-cause-uproar.html 2.102.186.130 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be saying a few confusing things that don't ring true to me. The sources you are complaining about are The Washington Post and the New York Times. If you have problems with the reliability of either one for the simple fact tha the people complaining were boys and men, I can't really help you. Please take that question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

As for the language you feel means we should exclude those sources, the three sources you just cited use "outcry", "grumbled", "slammed", "a fierce debate", "mocked" and "uproar". Those boys and men seem to be a bit more than "unhappy".

I am unsure how it is "condescending" to refer to boys and men as "boys and men".

You seem to be taking this one step further by saying simply "Some were unhappy..." To bolster this, you point to three sources, all of them prior to the film coming out and the spread of the women-only screanings. Two of them are vague and yes, one of them does quote one woman. One of your sources, however, directly states it was men. The three sources currently cited attach the complaints to boys and men. Other than the one quoted woman, all of the complaints specifically quoted are apparently from men. Contrary to your statement that "say is wasn't just boys and men", none of them say anything of the kind, other than one lone source quoting one lone woman. Three sources gathered with no particular agenda say it was men and boys. Of three sources you found to try to remove the distinctly male-heavy source of the grumbling/slamming/uproar/fierce debate, one says it was men, one is completely silent (other than quoting only men) and the third is silent (other than quoting one woman with the men). If, to you, that sounds like the complaints were anywhere near 50-50, you'll need to explain. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "Objections to these screenings were raised - mostly from men" might work. I have to confess, I'm not sure what the exact objection is to including "men" though...the statement is verifiably true in its present incarnation.

Now it is true that (as reported by comicbooks.com) Patty Jenkins mentioned having mixed feelings about the women-only screenings - and she's a woman - but I think that the article is referring to the Alamo Drafthouse screenings specifically at the time that the screenings happened, near in time to when the movie opened or before it opened on June 1st.

The ComicBooks.Com article says "However, there was also a lot of outrage over the screenings. As you can guess, the criticism came from men -- for the most part -- who believe the screenings discriminated against male customers and male employees of the theater chain."

The BBC said (on May 26)"Now unimpressed men are lambasting the idea on Facebook, claiming they are being discriminated against. "Great, let us know when you have guys-only screenings of Thor, Spider-Man, Star Wars, etc. Let's see you walk the walk now that you set this precedence [sic]," one man wrote.

And as the BBC said Alama Drafthouse's Facebook page has thousands of posts about the screenings.

Also, when I looked over the various sources (and I might have missed this but) I didn't see any references to "boys" just to men. Do any of the cited sources already in the article specifically mention "boys"?

Shearonink (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"Boys" is from the New York Times. The articles are referring to Facebook postings. Most Facebook profiles have a gender selected. Many people do not make their birth year/age available. In most cases, then, the Times would be able to tell if the person posting in male, but not their age. I see someone has now removed "boys" saying it is "judgemental". (Perhaps we should discuss the need to bowlderize A Boy Named Charlie Brown. Granted, it's a bit old. Back from when epithets like "boy" were thrown around in casual conversation...) - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Even reliable sources can be too biased on a particular story to quote from. As for my sources, none of them say it was just men, the left-wing Guardian came closes when it said it was "mostly men" while the other two don't state the obviously false statement that it was just men, which is what I'm arguing for and why I used those sources. Changing it to "Some were unhappy/angry/furious" follows reliable sources and it is NPOV. 2.102.186.130 (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"Boys and men" is "biased"? Ah yes, who can forget the furious outcry when Joe Blow addressed an audience of persons attending a school of designated grades K-5 as "boys and girls"? Remember back when folks had no problem with the name "Boy Scouts". And who can forget when Boyz II Men modernized their name to "People II People"? In any case, where is the outcry about this horrible movie title? Shouldn't she be "Wonder Person", last seen in a film with "Batperson" (not accompanied by "Robin the person wonder" this time)?

There is zero doubt that the overwhelming majority of the "some" complaining were male. If you are prepared to say CNN, The Washington Post and New York Times are pushing some kind of agenda and falsely reporting this, there is absolutely no point in trying to have a rational discussion. Yes, a good many of the trolls were boys, that well-known, common word for male children that suddenly became "biased" and "judgemental" somehow. I guess boys will be boys, except when you don't like the idea that some of the virtual tantrums are from children. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No word is inherently biased or makes an article invalid, it depends on the context and the context of "boys and men" is condescension, along with "virtual tantrums" and "the wrath of trolls". There are a multitude of sources reporting this and you seem to be obsessed with the sources that wrongly say it was only men. Why not use the sources that display no POV and are accurate? 2.102.186.130 (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Now it is condescension to call boys and men "boys and men". Wow.

The New York Times is a reliable source. It is accurate. If you disagree, please take the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Incidentally, your repeated claim the "the wrath of trolls" means a source is "inherently biased" makes it clear you did not read the source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

If we must mention the gender of the people complaining (but for some reason not anything else like age, race or nationality) then how about "Many men and some women were unhappy..." 2.102.186.130 (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason we don't mention the age (other than "boys and men"), race or nationality is that the sources do not mention age (other than "boys and men"), race or nationality. The virtual tantrum is over gender. That it is boys and men (i.e., not girls and women) is clearly relevant. How do we know? 3 out of three sources selected without screening for comments about gender discuss it. Additionally, someone specifically trying to discredit the issue cited three sources, one of which directly supports it (with one isolated woman in one source suddenly becoming "some women"). We do not have sources saying "some women". If you would like, we could accurately say, "boys, men and one woman". Otherwise, the reliable sources: CNN, The Washington Post, New York Times, BBC all support "boys and men" having their boxers in a bunch over this. We do not have sources that contradict this. We do not have sources for "some women". We do not have sources saying it was "many" men. Saying merely "some" is a WEASELly approach to leaving out facts that you may not like. The reliable sources say some boys and men "flipped out", "outcry", "grumbled", "slammed", "a fierce debate", "mocked" and "uproar" over a movie screening. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the sources don't say it was just men too, only a minority of sources say it was just men and you've chosen those sources over the others, including a NYT opinion piece over a NYT news piece that doesn't say it was only men - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/28/movies/women-only-screenings-of-wonder-woman-sell-out-and-prompt-complaints.html

That's not how sourcing works, we don't need a source specifically saying "many men" or "some women" to put it in the article, otherwise everything we write would be in quote marks. It's evidently true that many men and some women objected, and most of the sources reflect that, both by not saying it was only men and by quoting women. You can also say "A number of men and some women" if you want. 2.102.186.130 (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll also say that I think you need to step back from this topic, you don't seem to be able to edit this with a neutral POV: "virtual tantrum", "boxers in a bunch", "the trolls", "the virtual tantrums are from children". 2.102.186.130 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Until someone went looking for sources to dispute specifying men, ALL of the sources said men and boys. They found three, one of which still specified men. If I start looking for sources that don't specify Gadot was in the movie, would be suddenly doubt that? No, because it is relevant information that is discussed in independent reliable sources, just like the boys and men who were so upset about this.

The article in the New York Times that you previously said was "biased" you've now decided is an "opinion piece". It isn't.

As for "how sourcing works", I am well aware, anonymous IP, how sourcing works. I've been editing for over a decade with over 100,000 edits. We have reliable sources that say it was boys and men who "flipped out", "outcry", "grumbled", "slammed", got into "a fierce debate", "mocked" and were in an "uproar" over a movie screening.

Here's how sourcing does not work: Someone dislikes a piece of information and start throwing as many claims at it as they can: You decided the source must be "biased" because it calls a tantrum a "tantrum". You decided it must be "political/sexist" because it calls boys and men "boys and men". You didn't read the source and decided it "shouldn't be used" because of the phrase "virtual tantrum" (though your sources were fine with "outcry", "grumbled", "slammed", "a fierce debate", "mocked" and "uproar"). You decided calling boys and men "boys and men" is somehow "condescending"/"condescension" (or somehow "judgmental language"). You decided that something which was clearly overwhelmingly boys and men should be described with the vague, WEASELly "some", ostensibly because one source you found mentions one woman. Then you state that none of the sources say it was "just men"/"wrongly say it was only men" when we specified "boys and men" (without saying it was "just" them) the same way the sources do. Next you said we shouldn't mention gender (though the sources do, in this gender-based issue) because we don't mention age, race or nationality (which none of the sources have discussed). Now, it's a "minority of sources" (all three of the original sources, 1 of the three you sought out and all three of those submitted by Shearonink)... to clarify, 78% is not a "minority". One source quotes one woman, so maybe, you decided, it should specify "some women"? What seems evident here is that you want to remove a fact and will keep generating possible reasons until one of them sticks.

Let's take your ideas so far one at a time. Here are three clarifications I'd like to hear: How is calling boys and men "boys and men" "condescension"? Other than saying something you don't like, how is one article in the New York Times Movies section a "biased" unreliable "opinion piece"[3] while another article in the same paper, same section (but, once again, before the film was released) one that we should have chosen, other than you selecting it because it omits the fact in question?[4] How is 7 out of 9 a "minority"? - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You say "ALL" the sources, when it was just 3 (the NYT one is actually an opinion piece, and WP was clearly POV based on the language used), I found 3, none of which said it was just men (I don't know why you keep saying 1 of mine said it was just men), in about 10 seconds, and I can find a dozen more. Again, you seem to think that because a minority of (POV/opinion) sources say just men (wrongly, because other sources show women) that we should too.

Of course I'm fine with those words, those words aren't condescending while "virtual tantrum" clearly is, it's what young children do. As for "boys and men", other editors have pointed out it violates NPOV. If you want my opinion I'd say it does so because it's designed to put the critics in the same category as "boys", to emasculate and to imply that those criticising it are immature/juvenile, also putting "boys" before "men" in the sentence. Given your POV on the subject, I suspect you know all this and it's your motivation for wanting it to be in here. NYT itself classifies your article as an opinion piece and mine as a news article.

We're going around in circles here. The point is some sources specify the gender of the responses and some don't, so we can decide either way. If we decide to mention the gender of the responses, we can't say its just men, because that's untrue and most sources don't say that, and we can't use the condescending language of "boys and men" and "virtual tantrums" from opinion pieces.

Shall we try and agree on some options? "Some people", "Some Facebook users", "A number of men and some women", "Many men and some women", "Some men and a few women".

Or we can reword the sentence to allow these options: "men and some women", "There was controversy", "Alamo was criticised when they", "Alamo sparked controversy", etc. 2.102.186.130 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"You say 'ALL' the sources, when it was just 3..." No, I did not. Your claim is simply false. I said, "Until someone went looking for sources to dispute specifying men, ALL of the sources said men and boys.

Again, the New York Times article is not an opinion piece. This claim is simply false. You claim the NYT categorizes it as "opinion". It does not. Other than links to other sections at the bottom, the words "opinion" and "editorial" are nowhere to be found.[5] As the heading at the top of the page and the URL both indicate, this is in the "Movies" section, the same section as the earlier story you linked to.

"(I don't know why you keep saying 1 of mine said it was just men)". I never said that. Your claim is simply false. I said that one of your sources says men. "...much of it from men..."[6]

Now saying men is POV (previously it was condescending). No, saying they were right or wrong is a point of view. Saying they were boys and men is a factual claim, backed by the reliable sources cited.

You repeatedly claim that I have said things that I simply have not said, then attack the straw man you've built.

There is no "neutral point of view". Either they were boys and men or they were not boys and men. The reliable sources that say anything about it confirm that they were boys and men (and one woman). If another source said it was "girls and women", we would still not have a question of POV. Either "boys and men" is right, "girls and women" is right or both are wrong, "alternative facts" notwithstanding.

"...other editors have pointed out it (boys and men) violates NPOV..." One other editor (not "other editors") pointed to WP:NPOV saying, "Prefer nonjudgmental language". I am still waiting for some indication of how "boys and men" is "judgemental", especially give that editor's change to "men".[7] Somehow, calling boys "boys" is judgemental, but calling them "men" is neutral. "man/ noun...1. an adult human male." I'm guessing they think of boys as being adults?

Calling boys "boys" does not "emasculate". Emasculation involves denying or stripping "maleness". Quite the opposite, "boys" explicitly states they are male. Your argument makes no sense.

The phrase "boys and men" is not in any way "condescending". Condescension is invoking superiority. I haven't a clue why you would believe that others are superior to boys and men.

Multiple reliable sources say "men" or "boys and men". One mentions one woman. Zero sources say "some women", "girls and women", "some men and a few women" or any other construction you've created to somehow twist "boys and men", "men -- for the most part", "unimpressed men", "much of it from men", "virtual tantrums among boys and men", "Men flip out", "male moviegoers", "some men", etc. into some kind of 50/50 (hell, even 90/10) mix of genders. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ALL the sources when at the time it was just 3, 1 of which was an opinion (Google the topic, it's categorised as opinion) and the other was hopelessly biased. Yes, "much of it from men", meaning some were women, not just men as you keep claiming all the sources say. Whether something is factual doesn't change whether it's biased, by saying "boys" the author is engaging in the things I said, quite deliberately too - the author doesn't know the ages of the people commenting on Facebook.

Multiple reliable sources either don't comment on the gender or they acknowledge that it was not only men. Very few sources state it was only men doing the commenting. Those are the three categories of sources and the three options for our description, personally I think the first is better, given it avoids the numerical debate of men/women. If you want gender to feature and are concerned about the split how about "Many men and a few women"? Or come up with something else, because stating a falsehood - that it was only men - isn't going to work. 2.102.186.130 (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

So, your point about me saying "all of the sources when it was just three" is that when there were just three sources, I said that all of them agreed? Um, yeah. Is there a reason I should not have? It was all of the sources in the article. ALL of them.

You said the New York Times article we have cited is an opinion piece according to the paper itself ("NYT itself classifies your article as an opinion piece and mine as a news article.") This is categorically false. Now you have decided that Google thinks it is an opinion piece. I am completely unaware of any instance where we have accepted Google's algorithm's sorting as a reliable indication of anything. The editors of the New York Times categorizes both articles identically, contrary to your claims. They are both reliable sources.

You have repeatedly claimed that various sources are "biased". What, exactly, are they biased in favor of or against? Men? Boys? Boys and men who use the 'net? Are you thinking they are lying about the gender of those on the 'net who are so horribly upset by this movie screening? Why?

Great, so there was an outcry and fierce debate, much of it from men?

Yes, whether or not something is factual does impact whether it is biased. Bias involves a lack of fairness. Facts are reality. Bias is an action. The fact that it was boys and men is not unfair, nor is it fair. It simply is. Not stating that the tantrum was disproportionately boys and men (i.e., well over 50%) would be biased, implying that girls and women were also flipping out and in an uproar when they were not. It was mostly boys and men.

Read this carefully: Your repeated claims that I "keep claiming all the sources say" it was "just men" are simply false. I never said that. I have repeatedly explained that. You keep claiming it any way. Do you not understand or are you being dishonest?

By saying "boys and men" the author is indicating that the posts were from young males and adult males. That you think there is no way to tell whether a post is from an adult of a child neither prove that you are correct, nor that is is "biased"/"condescending"/etc. to refer to boys and men as "boys and men". You don't want it to have been men. Numerous reliable sources (CNN/The Washington Post/New York Times/BBC/The Guardian) say it was "boys and men", "men -- for the most part", "unimpressed men", "much of it from men", "virtual tantrums among boys and men", "Men flip out", "male moviegoers", "some men", etc. They found this to be true and relevant.

ALL of the sources that mention gender at all (and that is most of them) say it was "boys and men", "men -- for the most part", "unimpressed men", "much of it from men", "virtual tantrums among boys and men", "Men flip out", "male moviegoers", "some men", etc. NONE of them say "boys, men, girls and women", "men -- for the most part and women too", "unimpressed men and women", "much of it from men and women too", "virtual tantrums among boys, men, girls and women", "Men and women flip out", "male and female moviegoers", "some men and women", etc. ONE source you found quotes ONE woman. 7 out of 9 is not "very few", especially when 3 of the 9 were selected by someone trying to disprove that it was boys and men.

Multiple independent reliable sources directly state it was "boys and men", "men -- for the most part", "unimpressed men", "much of it from men", "virtual tantrums among boys and men", "Men flip out", "male moviegoers", "some men". Zero independent reliable sources say "and women".

I do not "want gender to feature". I want to report the relevant, widely reported fact that the grumbling/flipping out/virtual tantrums/uproar/outcry was from "boys and men"/"men -- for the most part"/"unimpressed men"/"much of it from men"/"virtual tantrums among boys and men"/"Men flip out"/"male moviegoers"/etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The NYT gives every indication it is an opinion piece - "virtual tantrums", "prompted eye rolls" but who knows maybe it was a mistake by Google, what's clear is that it is horribly biased and along with the WP article shouldn't be used to argue a point. You keep trying to argue against changing this article to saying anything other than it was just men, claiming the sources support that. We should just stop the boys and men debate, it's not going back in anyway. Again, we don't need a source that specifically says "some women" to put "some women" in, we just need to know from the sources that it wasn't only men. Given only the hopelessly biased sources say it was just men, we can do that. I repeat, at the moment our article says it was just men, even though it wasn't, in contradiction to most of the sources.

Also I think we should drop the whole gender thing, sources that don't specify gender: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/28/movies/women-only-screenings-of-wonder-woman-sell-out-and-prompt-complaints.html ("various online corners"); http://www.nme.com/news/drafthouse-women-wonder-woman-screening-2079006 ("met with a measure of both support and complaints"); http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/wonder-woman-womenonly-screening-slammed-as-sexist-and-wrong-a3549541.html ("news of the event didn’t sit well with some"); http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/26/women-only-showings-of-wonder-woman-at-alamo-drafthouse-cause-uproar.html ("Some folks"); http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/theater-responds-backlash-women-screenings-woman/story?id=47661569 ("Some moviegoers").

I really don't want to do an RfC to solve such an irrelevant debate, it would be embarrassing. Is there any chance of you dropping your insistence that we should say it's just men? 2.102.186.130 (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I have repeatedly pointed out that I NEVER said "just men. You have repeated the claim too often for it to be mere incompetence. If there is another explanation other than it being a flat out lie, I can't think of it.

The New York Times is a reliable source, despite your claims. The New York Times never categorized the article as opinion, despite your repeated claims. Google's algorithm is not a reliable source for anything, despite your repeated claims. I have repeatedly asked you to drop these absurd claims or take the question to the reliable sources noticeboard. You refuse to do either.

You have repeatedly pointed to "virtual tantrum" as proof of bias, as you did the bit about "trolls". You gave up on the "trolls" claim when I pointed out you clearly had not read the source. If "virtual tantrum" is clearly bias (somehow...), so are "flipped out", "outcry", "grumbled", "slammed", "a fierce debate", "mocked" and "uproar", meaning The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, BBC and others are all suddenly "biased". What are all of these archetypes of reliable sources suddenly "biased" against? You refuse to say.

Of course you think we should "drop the whole gender thing", that's the only reason you're here. Your repeated false claims, changes to claims and refusal to answer for same are all directed at denying an incontrovertible fact. You want to eliminate if possible or at least downplay that the tantrums/flipping out/outcries/grumbling/fierce debate/uproar was men upset about a movie screening. Multiple independent reliable sources confirm this as a simple fact. Your twisting confirm you want to deny it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You oppose any attempt to change the article so that it no longer claims it's just men, despite around a dozen suggested alternatives from me. What else am I supposed to conclude? I never said NYT is not a reliable source, I said that particular article is biased and shouldn't be used, I've provided a NPOV one from the NYT. Your claim that "virtual tantrum" is not biased leads me to think that you're being deliberately obtuse. And no, none of those other descriptions are biased, different words mean different things. I think we should follow the many " independent reliable sources" that don't specific gender, but alternatively we could specify gender with one of the many options I've suggested, or even others if you want to make a suggestion. What we can't do is tell a falsehood that it was just men. 2.102.186.130 (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The article does not say it is "just men". I have not said it is "just men". The article discusses the boys and men throwing tantrums/in an uproar/etc. Try this: "Today I had a sandwich for lunch." Does that say that I am the only person who had a sandwich for lunch today? No. If I discuss the women who have flown on the Space Shuttle, I am not saying there haven't been men. The multiple independent reliable sources discussing the boys and men who were so terribly upset about a movie screening DO. NOT. SAY. "JUST". MEN. Neither does our article. NONE of the sources spell out that there were an apparently small number of girls and women. That you feel the need to say something the sources do not say does not mean you can.

You have repeatedly attempted to paint the New York Times as "biased". You have tried various strategies to say the article is an opinion piece. It is not. You repeatedly falsely claimed the New York Times classifies it as an opinion piece. It does not and you have provided ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support this repeated claim. You still haven't explained what you think the New York Times has a bias against: Boys and men? Movie goers? Social media?

I oppose your attempt to either deny the simple fact stated by numerous independent reliable sources or water the fact down by saying something the sources do not directly state. That's policy.

"Virtual tantrum" is roughly equivalent to "flipped out", "outcry", "grumbled", "slammed", "a fierce debate", "mocked" and "uproar", except that it spells out that it was "virtual" (online). It's an online outburst of anger and frustration. You don't like the word "tantrum". No one suggested putting it in the article. It doesn't mean the New York Times is in some vague, unspecified way "biased". The New York Times article you are so angry and frustrated about is far from the only source for the material discussing the online outbursts of anger and frustration by men.

Of course you think we should exclude the material fact. Denying that what differentiated the outbursts was that it was men. Maybe someone else thinks we should follow the many independent reliable sources that don't specify DC Comics, World War I or Gal Godot. Should we deny those relevant facts as well?

Multiple independent reliable sources discuss online outbursts of anger and frustration by men. This is a relevant fact. Multiple independent reliable sources do NOT discuss online outbursts of anger and frustration by women. The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, BBC, etc. are independent reliable sources. They are not "biased" against boys and men, moviegoers or social media.

If you sell a product (car tires, cheeseburgers, tickets to a movie screening, whatever) you will get complaints. You expect it. If you suddenly get a lot of online outbursts of anger and frustration beyond what you usually expect, you're going to focus on that sudden burst of tantrums. Are they SUV drivers upset that we don't have the tire in their size when we said "in all sizes"? Was it Muslims and Jews upset that we didn't make it clear our burgers include pork? Was it boys and men upset about our movie screening? Did other people complain about your tires, burger, screening? Sure, but those few complaints aren't noteworthy. "Religious Groups Upset by Burgers" is a newspaper story. "John Smith of Sheboygan Upset by Burgers" is not. Guess which one goes in Wikipedia. Independent reliable sources would say "Muslims and Jews", not "Muslims, Jews and some people of other religions". - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Saying "some men" alone implies there wasn't women, because otherwise we would include them in the sentence, either by saying "and a few women" or by not specifying gender at all. Just saying "some men" alone is limiting it to men, which almost none of the sources do. I've never said the NYT is biased, in fact I linked a non-biased article from them. I said a specific NYT article is biased, which I don't see how could be contested if you read it. It makes no attempt to be NPOV, adopting a stance on the controversy from the outset. "tantrum" is not equivalent of all those things, a tantrum is what little kids do, the other words simply describe anger. Multiple independent reliable sources either don't specify a gender, don't say it's just men, or they mention female critics (a Facebook user and the director). You've got 3? sources that say it's just men, with the NYT and WP ones hopelessly biased while I found 5 that don't specify gender in about 2 minutes and there are a dozen more sources that don't say it's only men. What's newsworthy is that there were critics of this screening, not that there were male critics of this screening, as reflected in the vast majority of sources. 2.102.186.130 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Who or what are The Washington Post and the New York Times (and, apparently, CNN, BBC and The Guardian) "biased" against or for? You still haven't answered this vital question. (This goes along with calling boys and men "boys and men" being "condescending", I suppose.)

Yes, I can find sources that do not state the film takes place during WWI. Is this "bias"? Should we remove all mention of WWI?

Multiple independent reliable sources say that:

"boys and men", "men -- for the most part", "unimpressed men", "much of it from men", "virtual tantrums among boys and men", "Men flip out", "male moviegoers", "some men"

threw a "virtual tantrum", "flipped out", "outcry", "grumbled", "slammed", "a fierce debate", "mocked" and "uproar"

about a movie screening.

Your denial does not change this simple, verifiable, well-sourced fact.

ZERO independent reliable sources say anything about women (plural) flipping out, throwing tantrums, grumbling, etc. No matter how angry and frustrated it makes you, anything you say about women slamming the theater, in an uproar, fiercely debating it, etc. is original research and goes directly against one of Wikipedia's core policies. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I said a specific article from the NYT and WP were biased and I've said several times why that is. I didn't say that the sources only stating it was men were biased, I said the vast majority of sources don't do that and some of the few that do are biased. Yes, some sources do state those things, some don't and some acknowledge female critics. We can't pick and choose which POV we prefer, we need to follow the sources and the vast majority of sources don't limit the criticism as coming from men. So we can incorporate those sources saying men slammed the theatre, and those sources that don't say it was just men. We don't have to choose between them. 2.102.184.54 (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Still no explanation of who or what the New York Times and The Washington Post are "biased" against or for. (Simple explanation: They aren't.)

You are right about one thing: We cannot pick and choose which POV we prefer. Multiple independent reliable sources report that boys and men threw tantrums, were in an uproar and fiercely debated a movie screening. One source mentions one woman. The first is significant, the second is not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Just look at the start of the NYT piece: "set off a storm of virtual tantrums among some boys and men. Never mind that “Wonder Woman” could be seen at about 4,160 other theaters nationwide." I can't put the entire article in quote marks here, but it was completely one-sided throughout. Can you identify anywhere in the article where it presented a balanced view? They included over a dozen people who were pro-women-only screening and only one against, and even for that person they included a response that told him to shush.

But the sources that claim it was only men are in a small minority, you're saying that not only do we have to include what a small number of source claim, but we aren't allowed to deviate from it by also acknowledging that it was not only men, which is what the vast majority of sources do. 2.102.184.54 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

And now this anon IP is claiming that The New York Times and The Washington Post are examples of fake, liberal media that don't represent real 'murcans. That's not a tenable argument. I mean, one could go argue with their Pulitzer Prizes, but unless it's like Disney's Beauty and the Beast, the Pulitzers won't argue back.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've said no such thing, and in fact I included a NYT article as one of the many reliable sources that don't limit the criticism to men. I simply pointed out the obvious, that even reliable outlets like the NYT and WP sometimes produce articles that would violate NPOV for a particular story. 2.102.184.54 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV is for editors not secondary sources. It's not our job to police the POV of secondary sources. See WP:UNDUE. DonQuixote (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

And, to repeat: ZERO independent reliable sources say ANYTHING about women throwing tantrums, in an uproar and fiercely debating a movie screening. Multiple independent reliable sources discuss boys and men throwing tantrums, in an uproar and fiercely debating a movie screening. All of them, apparently, are "biased" against boys and men, "condescendingly" referring to them as "boys and men". Or something like that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

So 2.102's objection seems to be to characterizing the controversy over objections as being "many men & boys"/'Many men"/"Men" or even possible "Some men" in that these descriptions seem "a bit political/sexist". Do the reliable sources characterize the controversy as such, as the objections being from some men or from men? The editorial consensus seems to be to retain something along the lines of the present wording "Some men were unhappy with the "women-only" screenings" or possibly "Some men raised objections to the 'women-only' screenings" or even "Objections were raised by men in many social media venues including Facebook and Twitter". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we amalgamate what is reported in reliable sources, write it up and hit Submit. We exercise discretion but we don't censor the reliable sources' information.

Anyway, at this point I am pretty sure I am going to give up on this issue. Frankly I would prefer an RFC so editors could weigh in and, whatever the editorial consensus is, that particular consensus would then be clearly delineated and easily understood. Good luck, Shearonink (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with mentioning that it was mostly men objecting (even if many sources don't mention gender), but at the moment we're saying it was only men, which is not what the vast majority of sources say. Right now we're following what a handful of articles said, some of which like an article from NYT and WP were biased (and no, for the 5th time, I'm not saying the NYT and WP are unreliable, I'm saying 1 article from them was biased). 2.102.184.54 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Again: What are you claiming they are biased for or against? I've asked repeatedly and you haven't answered. I'm beginning to think you don't know what the word means (especially given the confusing claim that calling boys and men "boys and men" is somehow "condescending").

Again: No one here, none of the sources and the article do not say it was "only" or "just" men.

Again: None of the sources discuss girls and women having tantrums/fiercely debating/etc. the movie screening. As a result, Wikipedia should not discuss girls and flipping out/in an uproar/etc.

So, to clarify: You aren't saying the New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, BBC, The Guardian, etc. are biased, it's just that they run biased articles as if they are objective. Thanks for clarifying. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This is going to be my last response to you because you seem to just play dumb. For the bias, I've already pointed out how that one NYT article is biased, including quoting from the article and noting the respondents the author chose. I've already explained how "boys and men" is condescending, and I'm not the only editor who's said so. As I've also said, multiple times, when this article says "Some men..." it is by implication saying only men, because it is doing just that, limiting it to men. We don't need to use the words "tantrum" or "flip out" to describe women, and I would argue we shouldn't to describe the men with that either. Just leave it at "objected". Now we can do what many sources do and not mention gender, just say "Some objected" or we can say "Some men and a few women" (or something similar), which acknowledges the sources that don't limit it to men and the sources that quote from women, like the Facebook user and the director. What we cannot do, either explicitly or through implication, is say that it was only men objecting, because that is what only a handful of sources do. I'm saying that there is a particular article from the NYT and WP that is one sided concerning this story (which I've said multiple times now). 2.102.184.54 (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That being the case, we'll stick with what multiple independent reliable sources directly state, that:

"boys and men"/"men"/"unimpressed men"/"men"/"boys and men"/"Men"/"male moviegoers"/"some men"

threw "tantrums"/had an "outcry"/"grumbled"/"slammed"/had "a fierce debate" about/"mocked"/were in an "uproar" about

a movie screening. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Novelization is not a reliable source

A novelization is a work of fiction--it's a primary source. It cannot be used as a reliable source for another work of fiction, the movie. A novelization is not a secondary source. DonQuixote (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war over this. The novelization is effectively the screenplay in novel form - one reason it is called a novelization and not the novel. I have read it and it is a replica of the film. As of now, I see nothing in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film that states that a novelization is it not a reliable source. I have to sign off the Wikipedia today but I will check in tomorrow. If there is something somewhere in the style guide that makes a statement about novelizations, then there is a point. I will leave it out of the plot. However, there is no reason not to put it under the cast info.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:FILM is very clear that the plots of film here should reflect the manifest content of what is actually, physically onscreen. Other media, whether a novelization, the comic-book adaptation or even an edited reissue of the film is irrelevant. And the cast information is about the characters in the film, and not as they appear in the novelization, the comic-book adaptation, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, you have to cite a source saying that it's "effectively the screenplay in novel form", otherwise you having read it and determining that it's the replica of the film is your opinion and falls into original research/synthesis. And what's in the novelization should go under it's own plot summary as it's a separate, but related, work of fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh please, do not do a separate plot summary of the novelization. I don't have strong feelings one way or another about whether the novelization should be cited in the movie description. However, to create a separate plot summary of the novelization would be ridiculous redundancy. LadyofShalott 03:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Novelizations aren't usually notable enough for that. The point being that primary sources are only reliable sources for themselves.DonQuixote (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur with DonQuixote's assessment here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Everyone, I appreciate all of the feedback and since consensus is against using the novelization, I will adhere to it and not re-insert the quotes. If you look at the edit history, I initially added two descriptions from the novelization (which is not a unique novel, but is instead an adaptation of a screenplay) because people were making guesses about Trevor (that his character is British) and Diana (that she is an entrepreneur). My goal was the same as yours - to make certain that the article is accurate.

I looked at some of the official Video Clips from Warner Bros. and found the one posted below (you can Google it under "Wonder Woman ['Lasso Of Truth' Movie Clip in HD (1080p)]"), in which Steve Trevor states: "My name is captain Steve Trevor, pilot, American Expeditionary Forces."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dmk0yRiMrc&feature=youtu.be

In defining Trevor, I cited the novelization for the following sentence, which was later removed:

"Captain Steve Trevor:a pilot with the American Expeditionary Forces,"

I could not find clips from the Louvre sequences, so we will have to wait for the release of the DVD. However, the film clip above indicates that the quote from the novelization is accurate with regard to Trevor. That being said, however, I am again not going to press the issue and will end my responses to this thread here. -Classicfilms (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

The films also contains Dutch,French and Spanish sentences beside English — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.199.159.185 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

First Female misreporting

I believe it would be useful to recognize the plethora of bad news reporting related to the film. For example:

• Faughnder, Ryan (30 May 2017). "'Wonder Woman' could be the first female-fronted superhero blockbuster. No pressure, Warner Bros". LA Times. Warner Bros. finally releases its $150-million production of "Wonder Woman," which could become the first superhero blockbuster with a woman in the lead.
• Eisenberg, Eric. "Captain Marvel's Movie: What We Know So Far". Cinema Blend. Archived from the original on 24 March 2015. DC Comics will be beating Marvel Studios to the box office with their first female-led superhero blockbuster in the form of 2017's Wonder Woman

Did 1984 Supergirl / 2004 Catwoman/ 2005 Elektra not qualify as blockbuster (entertainment) or something? What criteria do you need to meet to be called that? Is there a minimum amount of money? Supergirl was 14.3 million box office, Catwoman was 82.1 million, Elektra 56.7 million. The latter is concerning because Eisenberg of CinemaBlend is calling it a Blockbuster over 2 years before it came out, so he couldn't know how much money it would amass. Faughnder of LA Times at least says "could become" but this does still imply that S/C/E were NOT blockbusters.

• Hertz, Barry (5 June 2017). "Wonder Woman's Patty Jenkins is the hero Hollywood won't admit it needs". Globe and Mail. With its lead star Gal Gadot, it has set a new benchmark for comic-book cinema, loudly and proudly featuring the first lead female superhero in our current spandex-obsessed era.

Are Catwoman/Elektra not "super" or "heroic" enough? Presently both articles on Wikipedia describe them as superhero film so that wouldn't seem right.

Is 1984, much less 2004 or 2005, in a different "era" than 2017? I think people were spandex-obsessed in 1984 too, you could consider 80s/90s/00s/10s to be one collective spandex-obsessed era. Some of the sources on this do acknowledge Elektra (2005 film) and focus on the "first female-directed" aspect, which excludes this and 1984 Supergirl (film) / 2004 Catwoman (film).

Even this could be wrong though, as this source identifies Tank Girl (film) and Rachel Talalay:

• Puchko, Kristy. "The Wonder Woman Movie Is Going To Make History, Here's How". Cinema Blend. The only other woman to have helmed a superhero movie is Rachel Talalay, who directed another R-rated actioner, 1995's Tank Girl. Frankly, it might even be a stretch to count Talalay here, as some will likely call her a comic book hero, but not a superhero. The only other woman to have helmed a superhero movie is Rachel Talalay, who directed another R-rated actioner, 1995's Tank Girl. Frankly, it might even be a stretch to count Talalay here, as some will likely call her a comic book hero, but not a superhero.

You can see by checking the history that many sources initially misreported this and later corrected it.

This should cause concern to the reporters (and their editors who approved their articles) who initially made these claims without doing adequate research, and only corrected them after publishing.

For example do a "view source" on https://web.archive.org/web/20170606023631/https://variety.com/2017/film/news/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-female-empowerment-superhero-1202446146/ and you can see it says "First Lead Female Superhero". This is how the article shows up during google searches for the film. Variety Magazine can also be seen falsely advertising this on its official Twitter:

• @variety (May 26, 2017). "#WonderWoman @GalGadot on playing first lead female superhero: "Growing up, I had Superman and Batman" http://bit.ly/2qkksBP" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 6 July 2017 – via Twitter. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 7 July 2017 suggested (help)

We see this more frequently with less noteworthy/reliable publications too: http://wstale.com/tv-movies/gal-gadot-playing-wonder-woman-first-lead-female-superhero/

• "Wonder Woman: Girl Power". The UrbanWire. 1 June 2017. Besides being the first movie to revolve around a female superhero, the film's production also features another novelty. Spearheading Wonder Woman's charge to theaters is director Patty Jenkins

This one especially bothers me:

• Wyanecki, Ryan (22 January 2017). "8 Reasons Why Gal Gadot Will Be an Awesome Wonder Woman". GamersDecide. In 2017, we will get the very first feature film of Wonder Woman. It will also be the very first lead female superhero movie ever.

since I vividly remember the awesomeness that is Keri Russell in Wonder Woman (2009 film) and clearly any claims it was the first live-action depiction would be wrong due to Cathy Crosby in Wonder Woman (1974 film).

Has any media actually highlighted this wave of misreporting that has gone on? Variety at least, being notable, might have invited some criticism on its misleading Tweets and Google-seeding. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Without reliable sources discussing this, we have nothing to say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with SummerPhDv2.0. I also think there are a few problems with the problems that Scratch is finding:

Female-fronted means Wonder Woman is the first superhero blockbuster movie with a budget over $100 million that is directed by a woman. Patty Jenkins.

And it looks like the 'Gal Gadot on playing first lead female superhero: "Growing up, I had Superman and Batman" Tweet means that Wonder Woman is Miss Gadot's first lead role in a feature movie. I could be wrong but that is what I interpreted the meaning to be.

To me, comparing an animated direct-to-DVD product (the 2009 cartoon-film) to a live-action theatrical film is comparing apples to oranges. Likewise, the Cathy Crosby movie was a project that was shot as the pilot for a failed Wonder Woman series, it was not a feature film, it was a pilot converted into a film.

Besides any of the above, issues with possible mischaracterizations of the 2017 Wonder Woman film, those mischaracterizations would have to be published elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Shearonink (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

My imput:

• 1) Part of the reason that a live-action theatrical release of Wonder Woman took 20 years to make lies in the perceived failures of the two other DC female - lead films, Catwoman and Supergirl (Marvel's live-action theatrical release, Elektra also did not fare well). This is an old discussion that one could easily document over time, but I would rather not do it here. A Blockbuster usually refers to both critical acclaim and excessive financial gains, which did not happen with either film. So I don't see the need to revive this conversation or document it.
• 2) The discussion focuses on live-action theatrical releases - Keri Russell in Wonder Woman (2009 film) was (as another editor pointed out) an animated direct-to-DVD release and Cathy Crosby in Wonder Woman (1974 film) was a movie-of-the-week television film (in fact Crosby's film, which focused on a 70's version of the character without superpowers, failed to produce a series - the concept was redesigned with Lynda Carter to produce the Wonder Woman (TV series)).
• 3) The discussion thus lies not in television or animation, but in theatrical live-action releases, and there have been of course female-action hero leads in live-action films - the List of female action heroes and villains offers a useful overview of films that both starred and included female leads. Some obvious oversights for female action heroes in general (not necessarily financial successes or critically acclaimed films): Æon Flux (film), Charlie's Angeles, Kill Bill, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film), Coffy, the Alien films, Foxy Brown, The Hunger Games, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, and La Femme Nikita. In addition, there are martial arts films with female leads such as Lady Snowblood (film) or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The difference here lies perhaps in labels - these films are often clustered under the "action hero" genre in general. Wonder Woman both as a film and a character refers to a specific genre - comic book superheroes who traditionally possess some kind of "super-power." Superman is an alien, Spiderman was bitten by a radio-active spider, the Fantastic Four were exposed to radiation etc. One could make an argument about figures such as Batman and Ironman that don't quite fit this mold, but even their machines (ie costumes, cars, tools) were so powerful that they too were pushed in the realm of the supernatural. Whether she was made of clay or the daughter of Zeus, Wonder Woman is not a human female action hero - her story is a contemporary interpretation of Greek and Roman mythology that originated in comic books. Supergirl is in the same category, and Catwoman (based on the character from the Batman comic books) is closer to a female action hero than a mythological God, but is still originally from the comics.
• 4) The significance is therefor one of genre - Wonder Woman is the first live-action theatrical release that is centered on a female comic-book hero that is supernatural and mythological in origin, placing the film in the same category as Superman and Batman for DC and Spiderman, the X-Men (and related films), and the Avengers (and related films). We have had multiple films (and different actors in each reboot) that explored the Superman, Batman, Spiderman,and the Hulk comics. It took 20 years to make this film and to date is the first female comic-book superhero blockbuster success in the box office as well as a critical success. Marvel did have opportunities with characters from both the X-Men and the Avengers, but Wonder Woman is the first.
• 5) I think the article as it stands conveys these themes (my post is simply commentary, it would be original research if added to the article) and does not need to be changed. However, if an article turns up on this subject in a WP:RS, we could add it. 'Nuff said. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I added two WLs to the lead which clarify that this film is a superhero comic book live action theatrical release film. That should be enough.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ban in Lebanon

The article mentions the reason that Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel asked the Lebanese government to ban the movie but it is not mentioning the reason the government ban it.

On May 31, Wonder Woman was banned in Lebanon after the Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel asked the Lebanese government's Ministry of Economy and Trade to block the film because its star, Gal Gadot, had served in the Israeli military.

In an official statement from May 30 the Ministry of Economy and Trade explained the reason of the ban is because "its lead actress, Gal GADOT, is Israeli." No mention for her service in Israeli military. So I think the current state may mislead the readers to think that Lebanese government ban the movie because Gadot's military service and not because her Israeli citizenship as the statement stated and as other sources says.(Variety, Reuters) I think the article should clarify that difference. Sokuya (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC

References

Highest-grossing film directed by a woman

The article mentions Wonder Woman passing Mamma Mia to become the highest-grossing female-directed film in history. However the previous record holder was the Wachowski Sisters' The Matrix Reloaded, which grossed $742.1 million back in 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.84.21 (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We have an unquestionably reliable source stating it became the highest-grossing female directed film. We do not have a reliable source using your interpretation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)c

Box Office Mojo attests to TMR's box office here, as opposed to Mamma Mia's recorded here, and this Guardian article confirms that both the directors are indeed women— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.84.21 (talk • contribs) 23:35, July 16, 2017 (UTC)

You are combining one or more sources to establish something that no one source states directly. That is synthesis.

By comparison, we have an independent reliable source directly stating that is the "highest-ever grossing film directed by a woman".[8]

The Wachowskis are women. They were not "a woman". This is highest grossing film ever that was directed by a woman. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August

In the "Elena Anaya as Isabel Maru / Doctor Poison" of the Cast contains a claim that is an accurate summary of the article cited, but is not a factual claim. In an interview Elena Anaya states that Fritz Haber created mustard gas, but this is not factually correct. Haber oversaw the work to weaponize mustard gas and deploy it in battle, but mustard gas was already synthesized and characterized by 1860 before Haber was born!

It would be better to put the incorrect claim in quotations to better attribute it to Elena Anaya, or summarize the quotation by referring to Fritz Haber as the father of chemical warfare, as he is often described, instead of the creator of mustard gas, which he was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.210.254 (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Home Media Release

WOW!!! A lot of discussions here. I hope that there is a person watching this page to see this bit of info that needs to be added. I came to this article to find out when the film is going to be released on Blu Ray and DVD, but it has not been added. I Googled it and the release date and info was just posted 2 days ago. I'd add the new section myself, but I don't really know how, especially to make the link appear in the "Contents." So here's the link to at least one site reporting on the home media release. To those that monitor or run this page, feel free to add it. I do not need any credit. :) http://mashable.com/2017/08/10/wonder-woman-blu-ray-dvd-digital-hd/#o0TKSlJ1saqG Its not that you need the link to post in a new section, you just need it for a source. I am not skilled at adding new sections to Wikipedia articles, let alone adding the new section with it's link ("Home Media") appearing in the Contents box. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I studied the other entries on the article tooth and nail to make sure that I got it right, and previewed it before I saved any changes. I added this entry myself, and got it done correctly. Which I'm quite proud of. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

War film vs World War I Film

Deloop82 added as a statement about this being the highest grossing war film. This was removed by SummerPhDv2.0 as this lacked sourcing. I added this via sourcing from BOM in the same place that Deloop82 added it. I later moved this from to the part of the text where it mentions the other highest grossing categories and clarified that the source saw World War I. This entire edit was reverted by Deloop82 saying World War I encompasses all war films. SummerPhDv2.0 has now changed this to match the source. Could we please discuss here before anymore changes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The source in question titles the table "War - World War I". They also have a table for WWII. They do not have a table for "War" films in general. There are numerous other films that various sources may consider to be "war" films that have out-grossed Wonder Woman.

If we have a source directly stating that it is the "highest grossing war film of all time" (or similar) and we are determined to add the claim, we should probably include in-text attribution and there are several different ways to figure this. Are any of the Avengers movies -- which involve fictional wars -- "war" movies? Is "Captain America, Civil War" a war movie? How a source decides to categorize films will determine which film is the "highest grossing war film of all time, according to ________________." - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Deloop82: Do you have any source that can counter the reasoning of SummerPhDv2.0? If not then we will have to keep in the fact that it is World War I. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It's set in the label "war - world war I" but we have to consider that they have a category for war films, but they onlt put the war sub-genre in it. THe only other source I can say is imdb Deloop82 (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Deloop82: Where is their category for war films? We can't "consider" it unless it is what the sources says, otherwise it would be WP:OR. Regarding IMDb WP:CITEIMDB and WP:RS/IMDB don't mention anything regarding grosses so I am not sure if that would be a reliable source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Some IP with this edit moved the information to another part of the lead and removed the citation. The citation it is next to doesn't support the claim. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I see the claim has now morphed to "the highest-grossing World War I-set film of all time". The source we have been discussing does not say that and the claim is not universal. More to the point, the source currently cited for the claim does not say anything about World War I.

IMO, the claim that this is the highest grossing war film or World War I film or World War I-set film or film about a woman from a fictional island or Amazonian movie or... whatever ... of all time is not an objective statement (hell, we can't be sure it's the highest grossing female directed film of all time). Such a claim, if included at at all, should be attributed in-line and does not belong in the lead paragraph. IMO, it doesn't belong here at all. Writers, list makers and web databases can churn out meaningless designations all day. Quick: What is the highest grossing underwater film of all time? The highest grossing film sailing film? Highest grossing film set in London? More importantly: Who cares? - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

If you can't start with a direct quote, then it probably shouldn't be in an encyclopaedia article. DonQuixote (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Reaffirming: I do not think the claim is solid/meaningful enough for inclusion. When a variation of the claim is re-added without discussion or a source, I will revert it, as I just have. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Unsourced category

Yes, an anonymous editor feels it is a "feminist film". We do not have reliable sources supporting this, let alone an indication that this is WP:DEFINING.

The IP has been repeatedly warned. If need be, a range block and or page protection will end this.

Alternately, the IP could decide to discuss the issue at any point. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

RE: "Polarizing" reception

@AnonIP(s): Yeah, no, not polarizing at all. Most of the negative reaction against the movie has been from a small minority. Making this minority larger than it actually is is placing undue weight on a fringe group. DonQuixote (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"Contradicting the earlier claims of Diana being a 'demigoddess'"

If, in the movie, Diana is the daughter of Zeus (a deity as per Greek mythology) and Queen Hippolyta (who is not a deity), doesn't that make her by definition a demigoddess? 24.71.180.185 (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)