Talk:Wonder Woman (2017 film)/Archive 2

director's mini-spat with james cameron
If you insist on including a film director's self serving comments on a film then
 * 1. why is it in 'response' section? If you claim it is a response to a response then include the original comment at the very least. "My work is superlatively good and I am great, and you are not good enough to understand it" is no surprise to hear from someone who has to sell tickets in order to get paid more money.
 * 2. You must give details of the responded-to comments, (the ones that prompted the director to talk up their own work) or it is 100% pure advertising from someone whose job depends on the motion picture's success. The sole reference to cameron's words is within the quotation of jenkins' own words, there is no information about what cameron said in the text of the article. Only on going to the outside link where one can read that cameron unfavourably compared the character of wonder woman to the character of sarah connor. Again cameron's words are really no surprise, person talks up their own work and says it is better than that of others.

Japanscot (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This dialogue box follows the format of the other two above it - a quote by the director of the film in response to something - in one case it is to criticism of the WW's costume (the criticisms were not listed though they could be) and in the other, Jenkin's response to using an actor that she did not select (the box does not include the questions about the selection). None of them are self serving but in fact contain the director's response to something and there is no reason except the length of the box that the original point couldn't be listed - I for one never objected to that. This was a notable part of the film's history and the attempt by another editor to turn it into a section was deleted. Because of the length of the quote, it seemed too long to put in a section and hence it ended up in a box. Given the amount of press to the topic, it belongs to the article - not deleted - and include both by all means (which I will do). -Classicfilms (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am adjusting the other dialogue boxes to make the formatting consistent. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I finished reformatting the other two boxes, so that there is a consistency throughout all of them. Good idea, I think it improves the article overall - thanks for the suggestion! -Classicfilms (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but why are we including this? It's on person's criticism and another's response to it. If there was a section devoted to an overall collective of information that discusses the idea that Wonder Woman "sets women back", then Cameron's comments and Jenkin's response would be relevant. There isn't, so this comes across as a stretch to include. Seems the only reason we're including it is because it's James Cameron (which isn't a reason to include a comment). Not to mention this giant quote box that spans 3 sections that it is completely unrelated to.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Both actually belong in the article and a previous attempt at a section was deleted - so it was a good idea to add Cameron's statement. Given that Cameron has created (Sarah Connor) and developed (Ellen Ripley) iconic female action heroes, both his comment and Jenkins' response are relevant. The other option is to create an entire section on the topic of what defines a female action hero (which effectively both quotes are responding to) and there has been a great deal of press on this topic, as the debate as to whether this is a "feminist" film above indicates. Simply providing the quotes is a better way of addressing the issue and remaining WP:NPOV. I am signing off for today but I will check back in tomorrow or Tuesday.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I hear a lot of weight being placed on an argument simply because of who the person is, not because there is an actual discussion of said theme for that argument. I also see an argument from you that includes a lot of synthesis to support the need for Cameron's comments. If you have reliable sources talking about feminist notions of the film (not some random person's blog), then it would behoove you develop a section about that, and then summarize Cameron and Jenkin's comments. We don't need to giant quotes from them when you can easily summarize their comments. As it stands now, that quote box should be removed. There is nothing supporting its inclusion. Quote boxes should not be used as an off the cuff visual aid and comment with no surrounding section for context.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The debate between Cameron and Jenkins is part of a larger debate that is noticeably absent in this Wikipedia article - the representation of a female power in action/superhero films, not about who the people are. From Cameron's point of view, WW is "an objectified icon" while Jenkins argues that "There is no right and wrong kind of powerful woman." With regard to WP:UNDUE and length - I checked Template:Quote box and see nothing with regard to maximum length. In addition, the real question becomes, why doesn't the article have a section called something like "Feminist debate" that covers what has become a standard issue in the larger discussion of the film that is reflective of these two points of view (which in themselves reflect a debate between Second Wave Feminism (Cameron) and Third-wave feminism (Jenkins)? The only other part of the article that touches upon this topic lies in the first quote box about WW's costume (and as far as I can tell that quote box has not inspired talk page discussion in the same way that this quote box has). I see nothing in WP:MOS which suggests that there is anything wrong with the Cameron/Jenkins quote box or that it needs to be removed. However, I would be open to creating a new section called "Feminist debate," in which case we could remove both the quote boxes about WW's costume and about the Cameron/Jenkins debate, and then integrate them into a larger section on the topic using the list of WP:RS below. It's a busy week ahead so that's it for today - I am signing off the Wikipedia now. I will check back in to this thread on Weds or Thursday:

CAMERON and JENKINS REFLECTING DEBATE BELOW:


 * What James Cameron Gets Right About The 'Wonder Woman' Feminism Debate (Forbes)
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2017/08/26/james-cameron-wonder-woman/#2c97e5c840aa


 * “Is ‘Wonder Woman’ Feminist? James Cameron’s Comments Draw a Rebuke.”
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/movies/patty-jenkins-james-cameron-wonder-woman-film.html?mcubz=0.


 * “WOMEN IN FILM: 'WONDER WOMAN' CRITICISM LATEST EXAMPLE OF JAMES CAMERON’S QUESTIONABLE FEMINISM”
 * http://www.newsweek.com/james-cameron-patty-jenkins-wonder-woman-655116


 * “James Cameron’s comments on Wonder Woman completely ignore her history of sex appeal” (The Verge)
 * https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/25/16206496/james-cameron-wonder-woman-patty-jenkins-comics-sex-appeal


 * ’Wonder Woman' director Patty Jenkins strikes back at James Cameron (USA Today)
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/08/24/wonder-woman-director-patty-jenkins-responds-james-cameron/600650001/


 * James Cameron Calls Wonder Woman a 'Step Backwards' for Feminism (People)
 * http://people.com/movies/james-cameron-calls-wonder-woman-step-backwards-for-feminism/


 * Patty Jenkins Responds to James Cameron’s Unsolicited Wonder Woman Criticism (Vanity Fair)
 * https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/08/wonder-woman-james-cameron-patty-jenkins


 * Patty Jenkins responds to James Cameron's Wonder Woman diss
 * http://ew.com/movies/2017/08/24/wonder-woman-director-james-cameron/

GENERAL FEMINIST DEBATE ON WW FILM:

2. Why Wonder Woman is a masterpiece of subversive feminism (Guardian)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/05/why-wonder-woman-is-a-masterpiece-of-subversive-feminism

3. “Why Wonder Woman isn’t the feminist fantasy we’ve been told it is” (Metro)
 * http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/why-wonder-woman-isnt-the-feminist-fantasy-weve-been-told-it-is-6731062/#ixzz4sI1piwau

4. Wish Wonder Woman Were as Feminist as It Thinks It Is (Slate)
 * http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/06/02/i_wish_wonder_woman_were_as_feminist_as_it_thinks_it_is.html

5. How Wonder Woman Is and Isn't a Feminist Superheroine Movie (Psychology Today)
 * https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/intersections/201706/how-wonder-woman-is-and-isnt-feminist-superheroine-movie

6. Spoilers: 5 wonderfully feminist moments in ‘Wonder Woman’ (USA Today)
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/06/02/5-wonderfully-feminist-moments-wonder-woman-spoilers/102392860/

7. Opinion: Wonder Woman is a great feminist film for kids — with some explaining (Montreal Gazette)
 * http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-wonder-woman-is-a-great-feminist-film-for-kids-with-some-explaining

8. The Top 10 'F*ck Yeah Feminism' Moments From 'Wonder Woman' (ELLE)
 * http://www.elle.com.au/culture/10-feminism-moments-from-wonder-woman-1-13350

9. ‘Wonder Woman’ Is the Feminist Hero We’ve Been Waiting For (Daily Beast)
 * http://www.thedailybeast.com/why-wonder-woman-is-the-feminist-hero-we-need-now

10.Unfortunately not all women can see Wonder Woman as their feminist hero (Sydney Morning Herald)
 * http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/opinion/not-all-women-see-wonder-woman-as-a-feminist-hero-20170608-gwn5bk.html

11. Wonder Woman is a feminist, and society isn't ready for her (BBC)
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/7cfde34f-a342-4821-872f-c11f6dcaf1ad

12. Is Wonder Woman a feminist in hot pants? (The Irish Times)
 * https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/is-wonder-woman-a-feminist-in-hot-pants-1.3102885

13. Feminists Can’t Figure Out If They’re Supposed To Like ‘Wonder Woman’ (Federalist)
 * http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/06/feminists-cant-figure-theyre-supposed-like-wonder-woman/

14. Wonder Woman: The feminist hero we hoped for? (Sky News)
 * http://news.sky.com/story/wonder-woman-the-feminist-hero-we-hoped-for-10898166

15. Professors in Women’s and Gender Studies Reflect on Wonder Woman, Feminism, and Hollywood (Wellesley College: News)
 * http://www.wellesley.edu/news/2017/stories/node/124876

16. Wonder Woman kills feminism
 * http://www.sify.com/movies/wonder-woman-kills-feminism-news-hollywood-rgupRNebjjice.html

17. Wonder Woman’s Unwinnable War
 * https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/wonder-womans-unwinnable-war

18. The Complex Gender Politics of the 'Wonder Woman' Movie
 * http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/complex-gender-politics-wonder-woman-movie-1008259

19. 'Wonder Woman' Director Patty Jenkins on the Feminist Superhero: "Being Badass Doesn’t Mean She’s Not Loving"
 * https://www.glamour.com/story/wonder-woman-director-patty-jenkins-on-the-feminist-superhero

And from the Huffington Post:

a. Wonder Woman As A Feminist Hero
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wonder-woman-as-a-feminist-hero_us_595088c3e4b0326c0a8d099b

b.Wonder Woman: Feminist Icon Or Symbol Of Oppression?
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wonder-woman-feminist-icon-or-symbol-of-oppression_us_594d30bbe4b0f078efd980e3

c. How Important Is The New Wonder Woman To The Feminist Movement?
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/quora-uk/wonder-woman-feminism_b_17124156.html

-Classicfilms (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice that you found some sources...now work on building a proper section. The quotes have been removed until that point, as they are not connected to anything else in the rest of the article, and thus serve no purpose. Quote boxes enhance a topic, but there isn't a topic in this article. Work on that, then we can figure out how to build that back in. It would like adding a picture of a filming location with no production section.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. I also removed the first quote box about her costume (as discussed above) which will need a similar level of context. I will integrate that quote into the new section along with the Cameron/Jenkins debate. There are a number of refs to go through so I will need a little time to put something together-maybe by the end of the week. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no rush. :)   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. A lot to muddle through -Classicfilms (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a reasonable time when I could post a draft here would be by next Tuesday (Sept. 19). I'm trying to put something together that is neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH so it will take a few days. I'll be off of the WP until that time. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think everyone appreciates your passion and motivation to work up a viable option to include the information. We're more used to the "put it in because I think it's right" argument, followed by edit warring that ultimately gets everyone blocked. :)   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hahahahahaha! That's hilarious and a pretty good description of how the WP can be (saying this as someone who has been around for 12 years here). Thanks for the nice feedback, I do appreciate it. In the end, we are all volunteer writers and editors here who hope to create solid articles, and I think there is a lot of good energy on this talk page that can help in that way. It is just much more fun to work together/collaborate in order to elevate an article to GA and/or FA status, which I think is very possible for this one. As for this rough draft - wow, there is a lot of material out there. Clearly, we do need a section on this topic, though what I am posting here is pretty long so we can shorten - or maybe make it into another article. I don't really care as long as we include something on the topic. Perhaps if you can copy my draft, make your changes, and then repost your suggestions, it would be the easiest way to discuss. It's a busy week for me in RL, so I'll check back in towards the weekend. Rough draft below.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Checking in. Looks like everyone is busy. I'll wait another week and check in again next Saturday (Sept. 30). -Classicfilms (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it looks like there are no general objections to the draft below, I will tweak it (ie. work to reduce the word count) and post a revised version in the next few days. In addition, it looks like there is a bit more to summarize - here are the new refs that I will integrate into the last paragraph (again keeping word count in mind):

James Cameron Doubles Down on 'Wonder Woman' Critique, Details the 'Avatar' Sequels (HR)
 * http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/james-cameron-doubles-down-wonder-woman-critique-details-avatar-sequels-1043026

Lynda Carter attacks 'thuggish' James Cameron over Wonder Woman jibes
 * https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/sep/29/wonder-woman-lynda-carter-thuggish-james-cameron-patty-jenkins

-Classicfilms (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

✅. I did what I could with word count, though as it was still too long to be a subsection, I turned it into its own section. Feel free to tweak. I am signing off for today but I'll check back in a few days. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hard work! DonQuixote (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!-Classicfilms (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Rough draft
Suggested title:Feminist debate (open to change)

‘’Wonder Woman’’ has been the subject of an ongoing discussion regarding the representation of female power in general, and of female action heroes in particular. The origin of this debate lies partially in William Marston’s construction of the character herself (dating back to her 1941 debut in Sensation Comics) who was created to document “the growth in the power of women,” while wearing “a golden tiara, a red bustier, blue underpants and knee-high, red leather boots.” The character was blacklisted a year later by the “Publications Disapproved for youth” because, they stated, she was “not sufficiently dressed.” AlthoughSecond-wave feministGloria Steinem’s ’’Ms. Magazine’’ debuted in 1972 with an image of Wonder Woman on the cover (and “thus shifting the focus away from female superiority to sisterhood and equality, essentially making her a mascot of the women's movement” according to comics historian Tim Hanley) the discussion shifted a few decades later in October 2016, after the United Nations bestowed the character, Wonder Woman, with the title of “honorary ambassador for the empowerment of women and girls,” in a ceremony that included Lynda Carter and Gal Gadot (and referenced the DCEU films on the character). The United Nations later “dropped” the title and role due to criticism that the image of Wonder Woman undermines female empowerment due to “an overtly sexualised image at a time when the headline news in United States and the world is the objectification of women and girls.”  ‘’Wonder Woman’’ director Patty Jenkins responded to the UN’s decision by arguing that its “sexist to say you can't have both. I have to ask myself what I would apply to any other superhero.”

The debate continued with the release of Jenkins’ 2017 film, ‘’Wonder Woman’’, which (according to the BBC) had “some thinking it's too feminist and others thinking it's not feminist enough.” This debate often centered around the physical representation of the character. Kyle Killian, Ph.D. notes that though “Diana is a warrior […] she is also presented as being as sexy as the day is long […] But that should not be the focus of a kickass heroine—her beauty, bone structure, and sexiness—if she is to be a feminist icon.” Theresa Harold underscored this point when she noted that “The most highly anticipated on-screen feminist icon not only has super strength, unwavering bravery, and speaks hundreds of languages. She also has to look like Miss (save the) World.” She was particularly critical of Wonder Woman’s outfit, stating “What about Katniss Everdeen? At least she didn’t have to wear a teenager’s wet dream of a costume to fight in.” Christina Cauterucci agreed noting that “whatever chance Wonder Woman had of being some kind of feminist antidote to the overabundance of superhero movies made by and for bros was blown by its prevailing occupation with the titular heroine’s sex appeal.”

In contrast, Jenkins, who states that she was raised by a Second Wave“feminist mother,” had a particular vision of Wonder Woman that challenged this approach to the representation of female power. In particular, Jenkins approach minimized the long-standing criticism of Wonder Woman’s outfit. Her costume designer, Lindy Hemming, only slightly modified Wonder Woman’s “Gladiator” re-design of the costume in Snyder’s ‘’Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice’’ According to Jenkins, the Amazons and Wonder Woman “shouldn't be dressed in armor like men [...] It should be different. It should be authentic and real – and appealing to women [...] It's total wish-fulfillment [...] I, as a woman, want Wonder Woman to be hot as hell, fight badass, and look great at the same time – the same way men want Superman to have huge pecs and an impractically big body. That makes them feel like the hero they want to be. And my hero, in my head, has really long legs." Jenkins notes that she gets “frustrated by people who think that they're defending [Wonder Woman] by trying to make her lesser […] When people get super critical about her outfit, who's the one getting crazy about what a woman wears? That's who she is; that's Wonder Woman […] It's not the male gaze that's made little girls buy princess dolls for all these years.” Critic Valerie Estelle Frankel concurs that Jenkins’ vision of Wonder Woman subverts the Male gaze and also suggests that the character herself tends to reflect the state of feminism of different time periods, including the recent period of Third-wave feminism which “further challenged gender norms and recognized the way sexism governed the world.”  Zoe Williams suggests that “while she is sort of naked a lot of the time” it isn’t at the same time “objectification so much as a cultural reset: having thighs, actual thighs you can kick things with, not thighs that look like arms, is a feminist act.” Williams juxtaposes Wonder Woman to past female action heroes (Sarah Connor, Ellen Ripley, Lara Croft) who she suggests were all constructed for a male gaze, in which “female warrior becomes a sex object,” a trend which she argues Jenkins references directly in response to Wonder Woman’s strength as a warrior. On the other hand, some critics refer to Jenkins’ vision of Wonder Woman as “an implausible post-feminist hero’’ In addition, when asked about the subject Gal Gadot agrees that “Wonder Woman is a feminist, of course […] I think people have a misconception about what feminism is. People think hairy armpits and women who burn bras and hate men. That’s not it. For me, feminism is all about equality and freedom and [women] choosing what we want to do.” She also stated that “Feminism is about equality and choice and freedom. And the writers, Patty and myself all figured that the best way to show that is to show Diana as having no awareness of social roles. She has no gender boundaries. To her, everyone is equal.”

This debate over the representation of female power with regard to Wonder Woman in particular and female action heroes in general also involved commentary by American director James Cameron. In an interview with The Guardian, Cameron was critical of Jenkins’ approach to the construction of Wonder Woman, whom he referred to as “an objectified icon” and “a step backwards.” In contrast, he states, his character Sarah Connor “was not a beauty icon. She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit.” Jenkins responded to Cameron’s statement by stating that she was not surprised by it because “he is not a woman.” She further argued “there is no right and wrong kind of powerful woman” because “if women have to always be hard, tough and troubled to be strong, and we aren’t free to be multidimensional or celebrate an icon of women everywhere because she is attractive and loving, then we haven’t come very far have we.” Reaction to this debate was mixed. Julie Miller sided with Cameron whom she states refers to himself as “a pretty hardcore feminist” and who told Vulture that “I have no problem writing a script in which the males become subservient to the females, which is what happens in ‘’Aliens’’ […] It’s up to Ripley to win the day”while Jenkins and Gadot envisioned Wonder Woman as “a woman who exuded both femininity and strength, along with genuine confusion as to why men would treat women differently than they do other men.” Susannah Breslin also agreed with Cameron, describing Jenkins’ Wonder Woman as “a Playmate with a lasso” and “female power with no balls.” Others were more critical of Cameron, such as article in ‘’Newsweek’’ which suggested that Cameron’s films include “lot of objectification,” and included quotes from Hollywood celebrities such as Jesse McLaren who commented that “James Cameron's just confused there's a female hero whose motivations aren't centered around motherhood.” Noah Berlatsky found areas of agreement with both Cameron and Jenkins, stating that Cameron’s objection is “an old point that’s been made over and over for decades” while Jenkins film isn’t “solely focused on objectifying Gal Gadot for a male audience.”

Wonder Woman a feminist movie?
Can Wonder Woman be classified as a feminist movie? Lots of facts and information were given to several sources that since Wonder Woman talks about a female in a main lead role, it states that this movie is a step forward to feminism as mentioned by these following sources: The Guardian, The Mary Sue Website,, and HighNobiety Website. Saiph121 (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned before, the appropriate guideline here is WP:DEFINING. This is a feminist movie, a movie about airplanes, a World War I movie, a movie about gods, a movie about airplane crash survivors, a movie about spies and several thousand other things. We have categories for each of these, but we only add those that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. World War I and gods? Yes. Feminism, spies and planes? No. So far, other than the IP repeatedly adding the category, "feminism" hasn't been so much as mentioned in the article. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * But the main point is about the aspect of feminism in Wonder Woman, giving as a matter of fact that it is lead by a strong female protagonist. Somehow, the non-classification of feminism to Wonder Woman is ironic as some other films that featured leading strong female protagonists regardless whether it's a superhero film or fantasy film is somehow an unfair misinterpretation. Saiph121 (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the main point is that enough reliable sources talk about the aspect of feminism in Wonder Woman. Encyclopaedia editors aren't supposed to make this kind of call. DonQuixote (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Your line of thinking would seem to indicate that I can go on a spree adding categories to films with domineering male leads, hetero-normative plots, etc. indicating the films are patriarchal, hetero-normative, etc. Were we to replace Wonder Woman in the film with Wonder Man, there would be little change to the main content of the film. Instead it would be questions about the all-male island and the male secretary -- subjects that are secondary to the main plot. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This notion you stated is somehow ridiculous; the line of thinking that I'm trying to justify is not with change on the main content of the film that patriarchal, hetero-normative, etc. It's really all about the main character (Diana Prince/Wonder Woman) which it's describing a woman in a leading role and the one who is driving the plot of the movie which should be a complete justification that the film had to be classified as a feminist film if only anyone can provide enough reliable sources so that this debacle can be settled for good. Saiph121 (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As there is no consensus or finality of any resolution to end this debacle, therefore it should ruled out with a justification that Wonder Woman should be WP:DEFINING classified or categorized as a feminist film that is basing on the reliable sources such as the Guardian as well US Weekly in which Gal Gadot confirms it as a feminist film from a mainstream media. Saiph121 (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say. Let me break down what I hear you saying and see what part I am missing.
 * 1) There is not a consensus here to support calling it a feminist film. (I agree: There is not a consensus.)
 * 2) "it should ruled out with a justification" (I do not know what you are trying to say here.)
 * 3) WP:DEFINING applies here. (I agree. "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." I do not see any indication the film meets that standard.
 * 4) "basing on the reliable sources" is where I think we might be disagreeing. Do reliable sources "commonly and consistently" (WP:DEFINING) call this a "feminist film"? You searched for and found one source that has Gadot calling herself a feminist, which is close. I can search for and find one source that says the film has many deaths, but it is not "commonly and consistently" called a film about death. So, I checked the first 25 sources already used in the article. All of them call it a superhero film. That is "commonly and consistently". None of them so much as mention "feminism" (one mentions "Wonder Woman's femininity", which is not the same). That, IMO, is clearly neither common nor consistent. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of your above points Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Saiph121: You would need a majority of reliable secondary sources calling this a feminist films rather than a handful. Think of it this way, when special relativity first came out, no reputable encyclopaedia would include it because there wasn't enough secondary sources talking about it. But as more and more reliable secondary sources started talking about it, the topic of special relativity became acceptable to be included in encyclopaedias. See WP:DUE. DonQuixote (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There would also have to be editorial consensus about characterizing the movie as such.... Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ...if the classification is disputed, which it is. (We haven't established a consensus for calling it a superhero film, but no one is disputing that.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that the Wonder Woman movie has been subject on feminist debate particularly on the titular character, and even stated by a reliable source, The Guardian as a "masterpiece of subversive feminism", It should conclude that Wonder Woman movie is definitely a feminist film. Saiph121 (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Guardian opinion piece calls is a "masterpiece of subversive feminism", but does not call WW a "feminist movie"... The US Weekly ref does not state that Wonder Woman is a feminist movie, it is an interview where Gal Gadot says "whoever is not a feminist is a sexist" but it does not speak directly to characterizing the film as being a "feminist movie".Shearonink (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You've found one source that almost says what you want it to say. Do reliable sources "commonly and consistently" (WP:DEFINING) call this a "feminist film"? Apparently not. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If those reliable sources such the Guardian and aforementioned sources as well secondary sources could not categorize Wonder Woman movie as a Feminist movie, what does it say on the Feminist debate being mentioned in the main article of this page? Saiph121 (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Being the subject of a feminist analysis doesn't make it a feminist film. For example, see Misogyny in horror films. DonQuixote (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And again: Do reliable sources "commonly and consistently" (WP:DEFINING) call this a "feminist film"? No. You have one source that doesn't quite say it. That is neither common nor consistent by any stretch of the imagination. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Presence of Telekinesis in the Wonder Woman film
SPOILER WARNING: In film's climax, the main villain Ares has the ability to perform Telekinesis that was featured in the film like moving a large chunk of ground in the air to crush Wonder Woman and even controlling any form of object telekinetically as a weapon against her like bending two iron plating from a military tank to subdue.

The main question is that would the presence of Telekinesis in the film that was featured be classified in this type of category (Telekinesis in film)? Saiph121 (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, telekinesis is in the film.


 * No, telekinesis is not WP:DEFINING: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." Bridges, death and chickens are all in the movie. However, reliable sources do not commonly and consistently discuss the bridges, death, chickens or telekinesis in the film.


 * I do not doubt that there bridges, death, chickens and telekinesis are in the film. I do not doubt that some sources mention death, telekinesis and perhaps even bridges and chickens in the film. That is neither "common" nor "consistent", however. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not all about bridges, death, and chickens. The main subject was all about telekinesis in which i describe its topic in the upper portion of this talk page. That kind of characteristic is even displayed in this movie and i can point an example to another like X-Men films all which featured Telekinesis by the main villain, Magneto in a same of Telekinesis by main villain, Ares. Saiph121 (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Do reliable sources "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" telekinesis? Well, luckily we have a bunch of sources already in the article. For reliable sources to "commonly and consistently define the subject" as involving telekinesis, I'd expect a pretty good proportion of them to discuss it. Admittedly, I haven't checked all of the sources we have. That said, of the first 25 sources listed zero so much as mention telekinesis. If anything then, the sources commonly and consistently say nothing about telekinesis. If we had Category: Films that aren't about telekinesis, this one would be a shoe-in. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again,, do "reliable sources commonly and consistently define" the film as involving telekinesis? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, there are no reliable sources to state the film involving telekinesis but honestly stating that it's being performed in the film unless you didn't see the climax in it. Saiph121 (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything and anything can be challenged. When challenged, the best thing to do is to cite reliable sources. Encyclopaedias work by citing and summarizing reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Obviously, there are no reliable sources to state the film involving telekinesis"... Therefore, the category fail WP:DEFINING. We're done here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Saiph, this is one of the articles I was referring to when I mentioned on the Beauty and the Beast talkpage that you appear to spend a lot of time making similar pointless categorization edits. This category, like some of the others, is utterly trivial and possibly even unsourced. It's not about whether anyone can watch the film and see that he lifts her with his mind, it's about whether anyone cares. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's discuss! Recent edits & reverts: "One of the best"? The "best"? List of best superhero films?
As seen in the recent editing history: There has been a series of edits and reverts recently. The various issues must be discussed on this page or folks could be in danger of going over the 3RR bright line and getting blocked for edit warring. Let's discuss it here please. Shearonink (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This is similar to the earlier "highest grossing world war movie ever" claim. Who creates the category changes the outcome.


 * From what I gather, the inclusion here is based entirely on Rotten Tomatoes' automated list. That is very recent (subject to change, tends to exclude older films with fewer reviews) and not really the result o any reliable source actually stating WW is "one of the best" or "the best". Instead, that is our interpretation of the scores.


 * Further, which movies are considered "superhero" films will change the results. "One of..." is too weasel-y (top 3? top 20? top 50?)


 * (Imagine a category with four films in it. One film receives scores of two stars out of five from every critic. The others get five stars from one third of the critics and zeros from all of the rest. Based on average scores, the first film would top the list, though absolutely none of the critics would have called it "the best". In fact, none of them liked it.)


 * If this is to be included at all, it should not be a blanket statement that appears in Wikipedia's voice, sourced to another Wikipedia article. Instead -- if included at all -- it should directly state what list it appears on, with in-line attribution and an "as of" date, something along the lines of ", the film was number 2 on Rotten Tomatoes' 'Highest Scoring World War I Films Featuring a Princess From a Mythical Island' list. . - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually Rotten compiled this list which is reference 214 at the time of writing. This is not purely automated and a note is given. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, the removing of the bit continues. I just reverted a removal because the IP used a misleading edit summary. Shouldn't the bit stand until we make a decision?Crboyer (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed the removals should stop until we come to some sort of an editorial consensus but Mabromov & the IP have continued their deletions without weighing in on this matter here at all, this last time with a misleading edit summary. I think 's solution is better than what we have now but have noticed another serious issue.  The lead section is supposed to be reflective of the article's overall content.  Is this single ratings list on Rotten Tomatoes important enough to break out this particular information within the lead section?  On this note I think it is more appropriate that this RT statement be recrafted - I have done so but maintained the statement within the lead, because it reflects the overall critical response to the movie.  Take a look and see if that reads better.  Feel free to change, etc. Shearonink (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Overcategorization
As before, I've removed Category:Films set in Paris, Category:Films about revenge, and Category:Fratricide in fiction as they are trivial, synthetic and/or inaccurate. Saiph121, please stop disruptively adding categories that are non-WP:DEFINING at best and unverifiable at worst. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If I understand this correctly, the "Films set in Paris" is based on the brief scene of her receiving the photo in the mail in present day Paris. This is trivial and certainly not a defining aspect of the film. This film is set in Paris to the same minor degree that it is set in 2017. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly doubt your statement that the "Films set in Paris" is based on the brief scene of her receiving the photo in the mail in present day Paris which you consider this as trivial and certainly not a defining aspect of the film. Even though it only appears briefly in the introduction and the ending, it's still have an importance within the plot of the film. Saiph121 (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So, in your opinion, the film is set in 2017? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Paris scenes contain no significance to the film's plot. Most of it either set on the island, in London and some airport runway.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 13:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Crictical Response section dishonest / incomplete

 * Anyone who claims this movie was received positively has clearly not ever visited IMDB, which is cited in the references. Read the User Reviews and then make the claim that this movie was a critical success.  Most reviews that I read absolutely shredded it as terrible and awful. Not good at all.  To me this article reads as a marketing piece for the movie.  I guess that's the norm nowadays.  So much for honesty.  98.194.39.86 (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any random Internet user can post a review to IMDb. Using them is against Manual of Style/Film. Wonder Woman got 92% positive ("fresh") reviews at Rotten Tomatoes where only professional critics are allowed. The audience score where everybody is allowed says that 89% liked it. The IMDb user score is 7.6 of 10 which is also good. I guess you clicked "User reviews" and saw where the "Best" of 1562 reviews are shown first. Here "Best" apparently means the reviews which were marked as useful by the largest number of IMDb users. Those reviews are mostly negative but nothing can be concluded from that except that many IMDb users mark negative reviews as useful for reasons we can only speculate about. The reviews are marked by about 1000 users while the 7.6 average score is based on 317,902 users so the markings are a tiny sample of IMDb users. If you select "Chronological" in the Filter box then most reviews are positive. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wonder Woman (2017 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909160152/http://www.nowplayingmag.com/content/view/1532/2/ to http://www.nowplayingmag.com/content/view/1532/2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes on the description on the cast
Why in the world that these descriptions of Dr. Maru stating "a nefarious Spanish chief chemist" or Charlie "An heavy-drinking Scottish Sharpshooter" Sameer "A French Moroccan secret agent" were being removed anyway? Even the description of Steve Trevor "An American pilot" wasn't removed. Saiph121 (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You make an edit, someone reverts it, it stays reverted while you discuss it. Do not restore your edits just because you feel you are right. Discuss the changes you want to make. Only after there is a consensus on the talk page do you restore the edit.


 * You still haven't answered why you repeatedly log in and out while editing.


 * While you have made it very clear that you prefer to offer several adjectives in a row summarizing your opinion of characters as the first sentence in the character's description, it does not fit as a summary of the content. In various articles, your long chains of adjectives have been repeatedly removed by numerous editors. Notably, your characterizations typically introduce in the very first sentence ideas about a character that no one else seems to feel are important.


 * For example, Charlie is a sharpshooter and one of Steve's allies. As this movie is chiefly structured around a war and Charlie's role is primarily about his involvement in the way, we have just described his role in the war and which side he is on. "An heavy-drinking" (bad grammar, by the way) is the very first thing you want to tell us about him. How does this fit into the plot or the main action of the film? It doesn't. Alcohol and drinking are not significant to the main plot. If Charlie were a teetotaler or a gourmand it would not impact the plot in any way. It is utterly trivial. To you, however, it is the most important thing to know about him.


 * Nationalities are similarly trivial here. We already have text making it clear which side of the war he is on. That he is Scottish, Welsh, Canadian, French, etc. has zero impact on the film. To you, however, it is vitally important that we establish what country some of the characters are from. Again, this is utterly trivial. (That you skipped over assigning a nationality to the secretary suggests othering, but that's not critical here.)


 * As for Steve being American, you'll note that prior to your changes, that characterization was in the plot summary, the pre-existing summary sentence for Steve and the fuller description of Steve, including the quote from the actor summarizing who Steve is. If the article had previously been littered with as many descriptions of Charlie as Scottish, I might have been convinced it mattered. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Accolades and notability
I've noticed some activity regarding whether or not a particular award is notable. I checked WP:MOSFILM, particularly this section: I didn't see anything that states some ceremonies are more notable than others. Since that is the case, I would suggest that we focus on the references via: WP:NOTE. If the reference itself complies with the general notability roles, it makes sense that the award ceremony should stay. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades


 * The MOS suggests "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability. Because of the proliferation of film festivals and "award mills", festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus. Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included."


 * Extensive discussion at [] cited the MOS and reached a consensus that awards should be limited to notable awards (those where the award is bluelink non-redirect notable). The lone holdout continued to dispute the consensus and took the issue to DRN which dismissed the request.


 * The basic logic here is that non-notable awards are not noteworthy. Various notable radio stations, magazines, labor unions, individuals, white separatist organizations, professional organizations, special interest groups, etc. exist. Many of them have "awards" that no one pays any attention to. The non-notable award does not inherit the organization's notability. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Three separate & recent filings at DRN about this issue last time I counted.... Shearonink (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you feel particular critics groups don't meet notability guidelines, then you should take it to WP:AFD. Until then, the ones with articles are considered notable per WP:MOSFILM. - Brojam (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with Brojam. My concern lies in the stability of the article for a future WP:GAN. Rather than risking an edit war by adding and removing, concerns about a particular award ceremony (or multiple ceremonies) should be addressed here on the talk page.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no question, for example, that AARP is notable. Additionally, there is no question that AARP's Movies for Grownups Awards are not notable. Listing the AARP award immediately before the Academy Award nominations is some kind of sick joke. The established guideline is that non-notable awards are not included. DVD covers and advertisements for films list Academy Awards nominations. Bios for people in the film industry list them as well. Hot tip: If the accolade touted by a film is that it was nominated for an AARP's Movies for Grownups Award, it ain't Citizen Kane. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * AARP's Movies for Grownups Awards is backed up by a WP:RS as it is from the Hollywood Reporter:
 * https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/aarps-movies-grownups-awards-2018-post-leads-nominees-1075285/item/best-picture-best-movie-grownups-1078593
 * As Brojam points out, if an award ceremony has an article, it is considered notable according to WP:MOSFILM. It is part of the AARP article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARP#AARP_Awards

I believe it is fair to include it. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in a bit of a rush this morning, so I just added to basic references to the AARP's Movies for Grownups Awards section of the article. I can develop the section at another time. If you Google the award ceremony, you can see that it is covered by a number of WP:RS which I can also add to the article, so again, it appears to fulfill the notability requirements for the article. Signing off for now, -Classicfilms (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the AARP Awards section with references here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARP#AARP_Awards
 * and I fixed the link in the article so that it goes directly to the AARP Awards section. Signing off for today.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"Background" section
The "Background" section has no information related to the movie that was actually made, only about previous efforts to make a movie of the same name. There is no indication of such, so readers are forced to read this very long, irrelevant section only to learn nothing of the background of this movie. It should be titled something like "Previous Efforts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novanglusva (talk • contribs) 22:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree. I removed the offending material with detailed justifications in the edit summaries.  Usualzukor (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * So far, 3 different users (including myself) ended up reverting the edits. I think I will have to raise alarms and get admins involved. CommanderOzEvolved (Comm-Net) (Action-Log) 06:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's knock off the threats and power games, okay? Usualzukor (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Further discussion at WP:AN/EW in case you're wondering. I'm not asking for you to be banned BTW, and I'm doing this knowing I may get warned by administrators too. CommanderOzEvolved (Comm-Net) (Action-Log) 07:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that many secondary sources already exist, so completely blanking the section is definitely overkill. Instead, you go from one paragraph to another to find and remove original sources wherever found and replace them with reliable ones. CommanderOzEvolved (Comm-Net) (Action-Log) 06:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. But, there's also the matter of WP:burden.  "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution".
 * When you replace the primary-sourced WP:OR, you need to include good secondary sources that support the notability of the conclusions made by all the OR that isn't supported by the secondary sources you mention. My point here is: it's you who need to fix it!
 * But wait! I'm not hard over on that!  I'm willing to do a little detail work and weed out some of the worst of it.  I'll take a crack at it -- tomorrow (it's bed time).  In the mean time, you can help me if you can point out some of those "many secondary sources already exist" that you mentioned so I don't inadvertently steamroll over them.  Usualzukor (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Willing to cooperate on locating secondary sources. CommanderOzEvolved (Comm-Net) (Action-Log) 07:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * He's right to identify the need for some radical trimming. Other parts of the article are also unnecessarily long - such as the critical response and cultural impact sections, and the cast section is verging on the absurd; most films settle for a list of names. MapReader (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll let others handle that since I'm mainly focused on anti-vandalism. CommanderOzEvolved (Comm-Net) (Action-Log) 07:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and trimmed the cast section.   Usualzukor (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Some additional detail about the characters was removed in the process. Some of that might be re-includable, but not in the "Cast" section, which should remain a simple list.  Maybe in a "Characters" section?  Still, the wistful musings of the cast members about their characters is highly unusual for articles about films, notable only to fanboys (i.e. not notable for our target), and largely WP:OR.  It should not be replaced along with the character detail (if the character detail is replaced).  Usualzukor (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Trevor's nationality
The article twice describes Steve Trevor as American. Maybe that's true in other versions of Wonder Woman, but I don't think the US is even mentioned in this movie; and when Trevor is being interrogated using the lasso, doesn't he say he is a British spy? --76.69.46.228 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I just realized I still had my recording of the movie, so I checked, and yes, I was wrong. He does say he's working for British Intelligence, but before that he identifies himself as part of the American Expeditionary Force.  Sorry. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No Oscar nom
and holy moly are people pissed: (it also seems important to note they nominated The Boss Baby.) JOE BRO  64  22:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.polygon.com/2018/1/23/16922862/wonder-woman-oscar-nominations-snubbed
 * http://ew.com/movies/2018/01/23/wonder-woman-snubbed-oscar/
 * http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/movies/a15857455/wonder-woman-oscar-nominations-none/
 * http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-oscars-2018-nominations-90th-wonder-woman-shut-out-from-oscar-1516715912-htmlstory.html
 * Not sure if this of note to include in the article. Many films/people weren’t nominated. That and the film isn’t anything award worthy. . Rusted AutoParts 22:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rusted. While many fans wanted it to be nominated, it really had very little chance of getting a Oscar nomination, definitively not worth mentioning in the article. There will always be snubs; doesn't mean we need to go around mentioning it every time a film doesn't get nominated for something. - Brojam (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree with the idea that "Wonder Woman" "had very little chance of getting a Oscar nomination" - why? After all, two other fantasy films - Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) and Star Wars: The Last Jedi received a few this year. One of the most popular superhero/comic book films of the late 20th century - Superman (1978 film) - had a few. In fact I could place a string of fantasy films that were at least nominated for Oscars here, though I won't. So, it is not warranted to say that this or any film did not have a chance of receiving a nomination from the Academy or any other nominating body, because it is a subjective act. That being said, I also don't think a special section on the topic is necessary unless for some reason it morphs into a larger movement of some kind. I just wanted to point out that it isn't up to Wikipedians to decide whether or not a film is worthy of a nomination -Classicfilms (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Warner's did actively try and campaign for Patty Jenkins to get an Oscar nomination for Best Director, so it isn't like it wasn't in with a chance. Variety magazine ‘Wonder Woman’: Warner Bros. Plans Groundbreaking Oscar Campaign for Director, Best Picture (EXCLUSIVE), others:. It might be worth mentioning, but editors need to be careful when trying to write about non-events or other things that didn't happen. -- 109.76.200.178 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)