Template:WikiProject Superman

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Television Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Somebody want to explain why this entry was gutted?Ted Newsom 18:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't gutted, the entirety of past conversations exist in the archive. I'm the one who archived the discussions. Most of the discussions were old and the page was getting rather lengthy. Archiving lengthy talk pages is a standard procedure on Wikipedia. You are more than welcome to continue a past discussion here. TheRingess (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not referring to the talk pages, which was expendable, and retrievable for anyone who wanted to wade through it. I'm referring to the body of the entry. You've made a great many changes for style, and I certainly appreciate your work. But you've also removed a great deal of material that puts facts in perspective, and you've done this unilaterally. You have, for instance, removed a reference to Reeves digging ditches, presumably because you consider this "original research." But this was a bit of information given to the authors of HOLLYWOOD KRYPTONITE by author/researcher Jim Beaver, and the book is cited a number of times. You've removed comparisons which put Reeves' career in historical perspective. You've removed the entire section on "Urban myths," which, in the case of Reeves, NEEDS to be accessible. There are a huge amount of misconceptions and outright fictions circulating about his career, life and death.Ted Newsom

I did not technically consider the digging ditches reference to be "original research". I considered a lot of what surrounded that sentence to be original research, and when that was removed, the digging ditches reference did not make as much sense.TheRingess (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes you "gutted" it, and wrongly so in my neutral view...as you took a "NPOV" discussion section on George Reeves and now have needlesly and wrongly hid it in an archive, and that is not right. Cathytreks

My aopologies. Please let me know which section on this discussion page that I removed into the archive, and I will reinstate it here on the talk page, so that the discussion may continue. The purpose of archiving was not to hide any current discussions, but to simply start fresh, so to speak. Please feel free to reinstate material from the archive onto this discussion page.TheRingess (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the relevant urban legends be placed into appropriate sections, rather than into a separate section. For several reasons:

1. Each urban legend needs a reference (snopes.com serves as a pretty good reference)
2. It makes the relevant sections more interesting.
3. The article is actually less readable with a separate section.

I'm going ahead and adding the legend about his death into the section on his death. Snopes.com actually has a great entry about it.TheRingess (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm going to delete the stuff in the opening graph about his death and Hollywoodland, which I've done before. The information belongs in the body of the text, not the opening paragraph. You won't find anything like it in a biography of George Washington, George Burns or George Lincoln Rockwell, so why should George Reeves be any different?Ted Newsom 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Ted Newsom[reply]

You'll hear no counter argument from me.TheRingess (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a never-ending battle. Wahkeenah 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the two refernces to hs other films from the opening paragraph, with due respect to Reeves. The films are mentioned in the body of the text, which is appropriate. SO PROUDLY WE HAIL is, at the end of the day, an obscure and forgotten wartime flag-waver; Reeves's part in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY is minor. He is not remembered for, nor was his particpation notable in, either of these films. (And others, please note-- I'm announcing this here and explaining it, rather than unilaterally making a change and hoping I get away with it... hint hint nudge nudge.Ted Newsom

I'm amused by the comments in the history tab, when 1:30 am became 2:00 am in the "Death" section. Apparently somebody (not me) is trying to get specific and somebody else is objecting. Not sure what the issue is... the official police report itself gives time of death as "prior to 1:20 am", which is when officers arrived to find Reeves had been "dead for some time." I'd like to know what these "sources" are that make 2 am seem definitive. Until then, you won't find me changing that part! MikeH0714 21:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Michael J. Hayde[reply]

• Mike, I'm sitting here holding a copy of the police report in my hand. It reads "At approximately 1:20 a.m., the decedent excused himself as he was going upstairs to bed.....Moments later a shot was heard...." That's about as clear-cut as we're going to get, I think. Just because some guy has read a book that erroneously says 2 a.m. doesn't make it true. I suspect you and I both would take the police report over some of the books and articles that have been written.Monkeyzpop 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Exactly. Even Henderson's SPEEDING BULLET (original edition, page 106) says that various sources have reported the time of death anywhere between 1:00 am and 2:30 pm. The police report is the only definitive source. MikeH0714 01:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Michael J. Hayde[reply]