Talk:George Reeves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Reeves article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is part of the WikiProject Superman which aims to improve and standardize articles on Superman on Wikipedia. Please feel free to edit the attached article, and if you wish join the project or participate in the discussion.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
More information about this article... This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.

	This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

	To-do list for George Reeves:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Find appropriate sources for all sections with the {{facts}} template. Create selected filmography section. Expand the introduction section.

Archives 1

[edit] Question

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

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Urban Legends

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)

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

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

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