Talk:The Shawshank Redemption/Archive 4

"Close paraphrasing" concerns
you probably need to be more specific with the close paraphrasing concerns. This article's too large to simply tag and not identify where. --M asem (t) 19:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. What caught my attention was the line "The low box office was also blamed on a lack of female characters to broaden the audience demographics, the general unpopularity of prison films, and the bleak tone used in its marketing," under theatrical release.


 * Compare it to the source material: "Theories offered in defence of Shawshank's box-office failure ranged from the incomprehensibility of the title (Robbins recalls fans asking 'What was that Shinkshonk Reduction thing?') to the unpopularity of 'prison movies' and the lack of any female characters to widen the audience demographic" and "The failure of Shawshank was blamed on...its bleaker-than-bleak marketing materials".


 * I plan on spot checking some other sections to see if this is an isolated thing or not.  Calidum   20:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I found some more examples.
 * First, "It was decided to mostly omit Stephen King's name from any advertising, as the studio wanted to attract a "more prestigious audience", who might reject a film from a writer known mostly for pulp fiction works such as The Shining and Cujo," compared to the source text "Because of King’s reputation as a purveyor of bestselling pulp, the novelist’s name was largely omitted in the advertisements for Shawshank, which was courting a more prestigious audience—the kind who, by the studio’s logic, might turn up its nose at a story “from the author of The Shining and Cujo" found here.
 * Also: "The Shawshank Redemption closed in late November 1994, after 10 weeks with an approximate total gross of $16 million.[80] It was considered a box-office bomb, failing to recoup its $25 million budget, not including marketing costs and the cinema exhibitors' cuts," compared to the source "the film bombed, failing to earn even $1 million on its opening weekend and eventually eking out $16 million (about $25 million today) at the American box office during its initial release, not nearly enough—and even less so after marketing costs and exhibitors’ cuts—to recoup its $25 million budget".
 * Our article also states "While Warner Bros. does not report what it earns in licensing the film for TV, in 2014, current and former executives at the studio confirmed that it was one of the highest-valued assets in Warner Bros. $1.5 billion library." Compare that to the source: "Warner Bros. wouldn't say how much it makes from licensing "Shawshank" to TV, but according to former and current studio executives speaking with the WSJ, it's one of the highest valued feature films in Warner Bros' $1.5 billion library.".
 * Another one. "Critics have sometimes struggled to define the immense public appreciation for the film" (our text) versus "Critics have struggled at times to explain the immense public affection for Shawshank".

I realize these aren't word-for-word matches, but these are all really close, like someone wrote this with a thesaurus in one browser tab and the source material in another. Many of these were seemingly there during the FAC as well.  Calidum   20:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The first example you give is definitely something, Of these newer three, the budget one is definitely an issue because of reusing uncommon words, but I'm not sure of the first and third here. They're trying to capture a "cause and effect" stance given in the source material to avoid giving off OR vibes if the thoughts were broken up, so the structure and content will be similar by default, and certain wordsets only make sense together in either instance like "former and current [studio] executives". There's probably things that can be done to distance them better though, but that type of stuff isn't as major a paraphrasing problem where copyright concerns would come in. --M asem (t) 20:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that there is no CopyVio at all unless you completely reorder the words to make them match other content? I disagree with that the first one is definitely something, it takes two separate sources, individual listed ailments of the film and presents them in a single sentence. And no I did not have a thesaurus open in another window when writing it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're literally trying to argue that this:
 * It was considered a box-office bomb, failing to recoup its $25 million budget, not including marketing costs and the cinema exhibitors' cuts,"
 * is the same as this
 * "the film bombed, failing to earn even $1 million on its opening weekend and eventually eking out $16 million (about $25 million today) at the American box office during its initial release, not nearly enough—and even less so after marketing costs and exhibitors’ cuts—to recoup its $25 million budget"
 * Try providing some notable evidence before re-adding that tag. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some "50 cent words" like "bleak" and "recoup" that indicate some possible borrowing, as they can be replaced with similar and more neutral terms. That's not outright paraphrasing but it is a clue there's something that can be fixed, a trivial matter. But I also don't think its the case someone had a thesaurus next to do to work those in. When there is problematic paraphrasing, it will be super effident it happend. --M asem (t) 23:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * At the same time though "recoup" is a word I would and have used in other articles. I don't think that is an obscure word, and while there may be something super obvious I can't think what other word you'd use instead of it apart from something boring like "earn"/"earned". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , where have you disappeared to after dropping a bomb in the middle of a featured article? I've challenged your claim, you can't ignore that and just restore the tag. You can do copyvio checks with the automated tool which passes except for a blog that has copy pasted the article. I thought this was the source you were referring to at first. A prompt response would be expected and appreciated. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

. I found five sections of text that match the source nearly verbatim. My concerns are there could be more I haven’t found yet (nearly the entire analysis section is sourced to a single book that I don’t have access to). I also think people not involved should look at this to see if the paraphrasing was appropriate. 14:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calidum (talk • contribs)
 * This is Erik (signature after the table). It would help to format instances to show the text side-by-side. This supplemental page has a section about close paraphrasing at WP:LIMITED for guidance here.


 * I think we should assume good faith, especially when it comes to this kind of topic where many sentences end with a citation. Other editors should look at WP:LIMITED to see how to apply it. Maybe we can collectively think of ways to distance the Wikipedia article's wording from the sources' wording to eliminate concern and not assume bad faith of these contributions. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply bad faith, though I do realize some of my comments might have been over the top. I do think, however, that an FA should be free of these sort of close paraphrases and these might not be the only examples here. I also appreciate that you were able to present the text side-by-side like this, because it's more helpful.  Calidum   17:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The fourth one down, the first sentence is sourced to a completely different reference, so it's falsely implying that because the second source contains LOOSELY similar information, that it is paraphasing too closely to an unrelated source. This is the problem, the first three are in no way worded like the source. Only the latter two are close, while Calidium implies it is a systemic issue because of the first three. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

Those are a few more examples I found just now.  Calidum   19:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC) This is literally a fact written two different ways. They share the words "Andy", "Red", "to", "the, "choice", two of which are character names and three of which are basic, common words. Can someone other than Callidium explain what the parameters are? Are we not allowed to use facts if they're used in the source we use for referencing? Again, the CopyVio tool finds no copyright violations. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am personally not convinced ALL the cases given by Callidium are "close paraphrasing" to a point tagging must be done, though don't disagree there are enough concerns on a couple points to tidy those up. Reading the guidance page on paraphrasing, there are some points that are warning signs: close paraphrasing may not always be caught by the copyvio detection, but the use of common words that have some type of 'color' to them (here for example, "allude" or previously "bleak") are those types of signs. DWB is right that other words are terms of art and doesn't make sense to change, but these examples should try to use a different word or phrasing. --M asem (t) 20:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Lack of female characters
The text you changed in the lead section is supported by references in the third paragraph of the Theatrical section.   B E C K Y S A Y L E S   08:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If push comes to shove (I believe the Guardian source is sufficient, as the author is not reporting his opinion but general concensus of why the film could have been destined to failure), I see a few Google Books hits on "shawshank redemption" and "lack of female characters". I won't bother adding unless its clear the only way to get this IP satisfied is through that. But the addition "It's a prison film, of course it doesn't have female characters" is OR/POV pushing and not appropriate. --M asem (t) 02:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need to indulge or placate the IP. The lack of female characters is mentioned as one of many issues, in no way it is raised as a serious failing of the film and is just broached as one of many reasons that the film initially failed. It's factually accurate, the IP seems to be taking it personally as if it is present in the article as part of some politically correct or feminist agenda. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know, I don't plan to change anything, but was just pointing out that if a legit editor expresses concerns, I can go find more sources in Google Books. --M asem (t) 20:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020
In the theatrical release section, it states that one of the reasons attributed to the low box office was a "lack of female characters". This is the opinion of one reviewer writing in 2004, yet the article shown here represents it an ambiguous consensus. Later on in the same page, you go on to definitely declare that the movie was popular with female audiences in two separate references. The criticism about the lack of female characters is the opinion of one person and that information is not represented here. 72.211.214.226 (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See section about. First, that's not the writer's opinion, as, as I've pointed out, I've found several books that say the same thing, so it is no opinion. Second, "low box office due to lack of female characters" and "popular with female audiences" are not contradictory statements. Not a lot of people saw it threatrically but of those that did, women enjoyed it. --M asem  (t) 04:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Where are your sources for these books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.184.224 (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Great article! <3 But I wish someone would mention (in the Christian symbolism dept) that the awful warden is whistling "A Mighty Fortress is our God" when he locks Andy in solitary confinement. I found this to be harrowing Christian symbolism--and as mentioned in the article, it could signal the warden is the devil as well. But its just an observation of mine (and countless others who sang the hymn throughout our childhoods) so would that be 'Original Research'? (I mean, since the song is obvious to whoever hears it and knows it?)

If you grew up with it, hearing that hymn being jauntily whistled by this horrible man, is as scary as anything else Stephen King ever wrote!

Thanks for reading, movie-loving peeps. You all enrich my life considerably. PB57 (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ocollaku.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reception in lead
Many Wikipedia pages for movies that are generally regarded as one of the greatest films of all time (such as Seven Samurai, It's A Wonderful Life, The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back) have sentences in their leads saying this. Therefore, I think that there should be a similar one for The Shawshank Redemption - as opposed to saying that it's generally loved. The last sentence of the page already says that it is "one of the most beloved films of all time" - and I feel like it would be more appropriate to include this at the beginning of the page rather than the end - as is the standard with pages like the one I linked. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've undone your revision as it was just an outright lie, but I have added the part from the bottom about it being "beloved" to the lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not upset at you but accusing other editors - who are trying to be constructive like I was - of outright lying, is unnecessarily aggressive. Please bear that in mind when talking to other editors in the future. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering that the List of films considered the best article - which all 'considered one of the greatest films of all time' lines link to - has two critical sources listing The Shawshank Redemption as one of the greatest films ever made, I have updated the lead to link to that article. If you're interested, the critical sources are Empire Magazine and The Evening Standard. NOT IMDB. I have also restructured the article for cohesion. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We also have two sections - The Shawshank Redemption and The Shawshank Redemption - which discuss how the film is considered one of the greatest films ever made. They use many critical sources that are not IMDB - such as Empire Magazine and its inclusion on film critic Roger Ebert's The Great Movies list. I feel like saying it's "considered one of the greatest films ever made" is absolutely more than justified. Feel free to discuss here with me but please, please by courteous and constructive. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with my latest edit then please discuss it with me on this talk page before you revert it. We should come to a consensus over it - not edit war. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This will be my last statement on this matter because I've already explained why what you're doing is incorrect once and having to keep coming back to this is taking time away from working on important things. The Empire magazine you are citing, and the reference on the greatest films article citing the empire article, is an audience poll. It says that in the article you're trying to say backs you up. Audience polls are not acceptable in determining the best for anything, and the commentary about IMDb in the hidden note applies equally to other user-based scoring or polling. Everything in the section on THIS article you are referring to is based on audience polls and it says that in the section. Even if it weren't, one poll would not be acceptable to make a statement like "it is now considered one of the greatest films of all time". It is beloved, it is enduring, I've yet to find a critic/professional poll that puts it on as a greatest film of all time, or it would already be in the article. The information you are copying/moving from the intro into a different section is simultaneously REMOVING that information from the lead where it matters, and moving it to a place where it is NOT sourced. I can't explain this is in any further detail that I have. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there were more other critic/professionals already in the article as sources. I cited Roger Ebert - for example - in the message you are replying to. Thank you for using the talk page to discuss this with me, but if you are going to edit on Wikipedia you need to calmer and kinder. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore do not accuse other editors of brute forcing things on when you are the one repeatedly refusing to talk - either at all or constructively. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you carry on being aggressive towards me I will just stop responding to you. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Roger Ebert is again one man. The difficulty I have is that you seem committed to getting "greatest" into the introduction regardless of a general lack of sources. Those present in the article state it is one of the greatest of the 1990s and one of the greatest screenplays, but professional sources calling it the greatest do not seem to exist or did not at the time the article was written. I think having it called "one of the most beloved films" is a pretty decent accolade on its own, but it is not plausible to say "It is considered one of the greatest films" because Roger Ebert listed it once. It'd be like calling Transformers Rise of Sentinel or whatever the 2nd film is called, being called one of the greatest of all time because GamesRadar listed it once. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Professional" usually means someone who is paid for their work. Why do you find a paid film critic to have greater bona-fides than someone that is un-paid to make these same assessments? In any other industry someone who is being paid is going to be suspect to bias - why is this not applicable to film critics?.  Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Take it up with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film buddy Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 07:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Single source for the large chunk of the Analysis section
The first few paragraphs of the analysis section rely almost completely on two sources, both written by Mark Kermode. They are written in a way that implies this is a commonplace interpretation of the film, but the singular nature of the source doesn't seem to line up with that.

I'm only bringing this up because the article does state this interpretation wasn't necessarily the director's intention, and while that rarely matters when it comes to interpretation, I did myself find it novel, and double checked the sources to see if it was infact commonplace, only to find 2 cited works by 1 author.

Does anyone have access to these sources snd can verify if Kremode was basing his analysis on multiple other sources, or if maybe this section should be modified to more explicitly describe this analysis as that of a particular scholar? (Or alternatively should more sources be found for this reading of the film). TJmichael (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * While I think that a book about the film as published by the British Film Institute has good weight, I do agree the Wikipedia article could use more analysis from other books and academic articles. In this Wikipedia article, there are only two references with ISBN, and none with ISSN or DOI. Most references are online-based, which seems to me that research was done primarily within the limitations of search-engine results. Per WP:FA?, being "well-researched" means that the article is "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and I think that needs to go beyond search-engine results. Years ago, I listed references to use here:, and more can be found via WorldCat.org here and Google Scholar here. I think most film Featured Articles are unlikely to be up to snuff because it is really hard to research well, meaning to get one's hands on books or access to academic articles (though WP:LIBRARY has made it easier over the years). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

When Brooks Hatlen came to Shawshank
The reference used in this edit does not actually say Brooks came to Shawshank in the early 1900s; it just says he was released from prison after 50 years but no absolute dates. I agree the reference I provided is not ideal, but per WP:USINGSPS I think it is fine. Nobody is arguing it is incorrect. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Blooper
When narrating Andy's escape, Red says that Andy crawled through 500 yards of filth, "just shy of half a mile". There are 1760 yards in a mile so 500 isn't even one-third of a mile.70.161.8.90 (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * We don't generally mention bloopers unless they are widely covered by prominent sources. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Box office gross
Can somebody provide a reference for the box office gross of $73.3 million? Currently we only have a Variety article from 1996 which is not easy to verify. Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, which are suggested to be used according to Template:Infobox film, both say ~$28 million. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request can provide a copy of the source. I think added it. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the url for the page with the chart https://varietyultimate.com/archive/issue/WV-02-19-1996-26 but without a subscription I expect it is not easy to see. Shawshank is listed with a gross of $56.8m with a domestic gross of $11.8m for 1995 and an international gross of $45m. The $11.8m is in line with Box Office Mojo which indicates that the film grossed $16m to Thanksgiving 1994. Websites like Box Office Mojo and The Numbers don't have much pre-2000 international grosses so are unreliable for years prior to that. Citations don't need to be accessible online. If you go to a large library, they may be able to provide access to the Variety archives from that era if you want to check for yourself. Sudiani (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I agree citations don't need to be accessible online. It seems like WP:SYNTH though to be using the international gross from 1995 only from one source and combining it with the domestic gross from multiple years from another source. I wonder if we'd be better off just giving the domestic gross. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * might have useful insight but I don't see the issue, the sources we normally use don't have international figures and don't seem to have any interest in adding those figures, and the international figure is sourced to Variety which is, you know, Variety, it's not just one source it's a long-lived and respected industry magazine. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 17:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any issue with Variety here. Unfortunately, as you point out, when it comes to be pre-2000 films the regular trackers (BOM, The Numbers) have lots of gaps. They're not so hot on pre-1980 US figures either. In the case of older films it's often a case of beggars can't be choosers. I am slightly concerned by the disparity between the Variety's domestic figure and Box Office Mojo's. Are you sure that Variety's domestic figure isn't a distributor rental ? An $11.8 million rental would be consistent with a gross of $24 million, which may explain the discrepency? I don't think there is a SYNTH problem with adding a domestic and international figure, provided we are sure that the figures relate to those metrics. Its simple addition, and basic arithmetical calculations are permitted by WP:CALC. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per BOM, Shawshank grossed $28m in total in its initial release. Again, per BOM, they show it grossing $16m in the US and Canada in 1994 and therefore, $12m in 1995. The $12m is in line with that reported by Variety in their international chart for 1995 which is based on the calendar year grosses (not rentals). Per IMDb, Shawshank opened in a few smaller international markets in 1994 including Mexico and India so has grossed more than $45 million internationally but their 1994 international top 100 starts at $21 million, so it likely grossed less than $5 million from those markets in 1994. There is a Variety report from 1997 accessible online which showed it grossed $31.7m internationally for Castle Rock (https://variety.com/1997/scene/vpage/mouse-all-mighty-1117433867/) but it is unclear from this reporting what period this relates to and also it had multiple international distributors so is not a complete gross either (Variety 1995 chart lists Sony and Castle Rock as distributors; IMDb lists the UK distributor as Rank, Columbia for Sweden, Village Roadshow for Australia, UGC for France etc.) While it has likely grossed a little more than $73 million internationally, I think it best to stick with the figures that are verifiable and the international figure presented is more representative of its performance than a US only figure. Sudiani (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)