Talk:The Amusement Park

Date of film

Notfrompedro, Tehonk, please discuss your edits here and stop warring. Schazjmd (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I left the alteration of the release date. I took issue with calling referenced material "inaccuracies" without explanation or reference which says otherwise. [1] The references state that 2019 was when it premiered. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think a small tweak would make someone edit warring like this, didn't know someone was owning this article so just made an edit and was already planning to add supportive sources after properly formatted them. But it seems I need to rush for that and will support my edits with sources shortly with more inaccuracy fixes.Tehonk (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Since your changes have been disputed, Tehonk, I suggest that you discuss them here with your sources before editing the article again. Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

First, none of my edit summaries were dishonest like you claim, I said "fixed inaccuracies", that was what I was doing, I said "redundancy" because that was what I thought after you kept my 1973 edit in lead, repeating it again was redundancy for me. On the other hand, you tried to disguise your edit warring with a "rv poor grammar" dishonesty. If there is a poor grammar, you fix the grammar, don't revert it. Also, "a 1973 movie" doesn't necessarily mean it refers to the release date, there are many cases where production year is used in lead when it's appropriate.

Your claim "Never released until 2019" was not true, there is a lot of overhyped misinformation about it. It's mostly PR. It actually premiered in June 1975 in New York on a festival specialized for non-theatrical, educational, made for video films.[2][3], then in a 10 day festival organized in honor of Romero by Pittsburgh Filmmakers in 1986 called George A. Romero Festival [4] Looks like someone even added a reference to a Boxoffice issue yesterday which mentions a release in local theatres in July 1975.

And other overhyped claims, like after investors seeing it they wanted to bury it, to make it not seen, to hide it, "it was so evil, nobody should see it, that's why it was lost until now" etc...

First, truth is simpler than, it all lies in Romero's answer to his wife when she asked why he didn't tell her about it: "It was a community thing, it was nothing." It was not considered a movie, it was an educational video, a PSA, something more like a commercial, or an industrial/corporate video made by his company Latent Image, specialized in commercials and industrial films. And that's why it was screened along with his commercials in 2001 at a Romero retrospective at Torino Film Festival in Italy [5]

See? Not lost, there's a screening even in 2001. That's where it came from in 2017, it was sent to Romero and his wife by their festival programmer friend who used it in the Romero retrospective in Italy in 2001, that Romero retrospective mentioned in the article took place in 2001, not in 2017, there's a misunderstanding there as well.

See? We have different screenings in different years. It was not lost or shelved, it was just not considered important. There is no "shelved after watching it" either, as can be seen a previously mentioned URL [6] it was "advertised in the trades as a TV special" for "Station Buyers And Program Managers", looks like it was just not picked by anyone. So they tried to sell it, did not shelve it.

All of these overhyped articles came from when a writer made a big deal about it on Twitter in November 2018. He made it look like he's the one who unearthed it, and articles reported it like that at that time. Even this Wikipedia article was saying it was discovered in 2018 at some point as far as I can see but you fixed it as 2017 at a later point. Because its discovery had nothing to do with that guy like he wanted to portray it. He posted all those exaggerated and overhyped tweets that say nobody can't watch it etc.. in November 2018, but just a few months ago, in March 2018, it was running in a theater in New York for days, open to everyone to buy a ticket and go watch it. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

See? It had a multi day screening run in March 2018 but that guy was saying it was lost, he found it, nobody could watch it, all these overhyped things.

I listed several screenings since 1975 here as you can see, so my edit was "fixing inaccuracy", what was premiered in 2019 was only the premier of the restored version.

Are you willing to fix these inaccuracies with your perfect grammar now with all these sources? Looks like Forty.4 already started with somethingTehonk (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

We already had most of this conversation on my talk page. I explained how your edits were ungrammatical and it makes no sense for me to manually retype the old correct version instead of just reverting to it. If the earliest date you can find referenced is 1975 then your edit of "1973 film" is still inaccurate because that would make it a 1975 film. You haven't presented a single edit to show it had a 1973 release. The first UPitt reference you provide states *"it went largely unseen and unknown for the next 45 years"* so you can't go on to claim it was never lost. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I explained it does not always refer a "release", sometimes production year is used when calling a movie "a XXXX movie", there are other examples, since it was not a 2019 movie, I found it more appropriate it to call it a 1973 movie, with its production year, so no it was not inaccurate. I never made an edit to say it was released in 1973, I said not a 2019 movie and changed the opening sentence to go with production year, there is no strict rule to call a movie with its first release year. "A 1973 movie" does not mean it's released in 1973, it means "A 1973 movie". And you don't have a problem with grammar of "The restoration premiered" now. If the grammar was your issue, you need to fix the grammar, not reverting to a different meaning.

"largely unseen" does not mean it was never shown or lost, it means "largely unseen". The same part you quoted continues with this: "It was never really "lost": rather, it was just a little too weird to become widely available.". Why did you skip that part? Was not commercially and widely released, yes, but that doesn't mean it was lost. I showed you proofs why it was not really lost.Tehonk (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You can pretend there is a subtle distinction between "largely unseen" and "unseen" but the point stands: the film was not shown in 1973 and was not actually released until 2019. You had no references for your initial edits and arguing that they should have been accepted without references is not how Wikipedia works. The talk page is for discussing the content of the articles not for attacking me. Notfrompedro (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you at all, you're manipulating things all the time, I'm answering them. You're cherry-picking one sentence from a source to say you can't claim it was not lost, while just the next sentence starts with "It was never really lost", of course I will ask "Why did you skip that part"
"film was not shown in 1973", explained more than 3 times already, I did not made any edit that claim that, I found it more appropriate to use production year in opening. There is no "subtle" distinction between "largely unseen" and "unseen". "largely unseen" means "largely unseen", "unseen" means "unseen", "never released" means "never released".

"was not actually released until 2019", already showed it's incorrect. let's take out the festival screenings, there's even a multi-day run in New York in 2018. "not widely released" and "not released" is not same thing.

"arguing that they should have been accepted" - I'm not doing that, I just presented my sources and reasoning. You just can't accept your "never released until 2019" statement was wrong and that you made initial edits based on a few super weak inaccurate sources and took these for granted.Tehonk (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You have been attacking me and passive-aggressive stuff like this is harassment. If you cannot be civil then we will have to take this to a different venue. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you at all, I sent you warning because I was gonna report you for your 4 reversions, that's not attack, you accused me of using dishonest summaries while that was what you were doing exactly and I defended myself. You're saying you take issue with removing referenced material, then you remove Boxoffice magazine by claiming it's not reliable, I open a discussion about it with the people who listed it as reliable. I'm talking about the content, about the action there.Tehonk (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You have cast aspersions about me and my motivation throughout this entire conversation as well as going to WikiProject Film to passive-aggressively attack me there. I explained the Boxoffice edit three times now and I replaced it with a reliable source that you suggested up above. The fact that you continue to harp on that makes it pretty clear to me that none of this is about the article and instead you just have an issue with me. If you find yourself unable to control your vitriol then simply don't attempt to engage me. This talk page is about the article and improving it: not to discuss other editors. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I simply presented my arguments and then replied to your arguments. When you made me explain same thing 4+ times, when you quote something to support your argument but ignore just the next sentence after that, it's natural I question that. Things like "overhyped claims" in my first long post was not about you at all btw, it was about the articles and general perception. I did not attack you anywhere, I'm not talking about you there, if a source they list as reliable is getting removed as not reliable, I can ask them about it.Tehonk (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Boxoffice magazine is not a reliable source now

To note: User Notfrompedro who supposedly has issue with removing referenced materials, removed a referenced material with the reference itself by calling it not reliable. Boxoffice magazine is the one declared as not reliable here despite I'm seeing it listed as reliable source on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources Tehonk (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed a link to Yumpu which gave no title, page number, author or anything and a NYT link to an article that doesn't even mention The Amusement Park. I replaced them with verifiable reliable sources. Notfrompedro (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You removed referenced information from Boxoffice magazine with the reference itself by claiming it's not reliable. Yumpu is not a source, it's merely a host, source is the magazine itself, it doesn't matter where they choose to host their archives. Things you say is not a reason to remove a referenced material with the reference itself. You are welcome to improve its formatting, not remove it.Tehonk (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you even bother to read what I write before attacking me? The Yumpu link provided to title, page number, or author. Nobody should have to read an entire 78 page magazine to see if it actually says what is claimed. The reference needs to point to the specific part that supposedly references the statement. I replaced it with a valid and reliable source so harping on this is just more of your personal attacks instead of working on the article. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm not attacking you at all, I'm only talking about content and actions here and answering the same things to you 4+ times because every time I answer, you come back with same thing. You don't have to read entire 78 page, there is a search button, you removed a statement that was supported by the source with "yumpu isn't a WP:RS", that's why I'm explaining you the difference between a host and source. My issue is the removed info.Tehonk (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I used a reliable source that you suggested and you can't let go of the Yumpu thing when it has no bearing on the content of the article at all. When I search "amusement park" there are zero returns. Yes references require page numbers. If you are so sure that the Yumpu source is valid then why haven't you simply provided the page number this entire time? Because it isn't about that source. It is about you making mountains out of molehills to disparage me. If you can't contain yourself and limit your comments to the actual content of the article I won't waste time replying to you. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I get the part about you adding a source I suggested, I'm talking about the info about being a finalist that you removed. I took issue with it because you used that reason to revert me and then you did the same thing, removing referenced info. Because that was a new info for me as well and you removed it along with an established source. Page is 22, I found it by searching "amusement" when I first saw it. I'm not attacking you, I'm just saying instead of fixing you remove things because of bad grammar, you remove things because of bad formatting and then you use that same reason for your reversionsTehonk (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"Lost" film

The film was considered lost. The references make this very clear specifically this one and this one. To continually attempt to change this because you have some personal belief that it shouldn't be called that is POV pushing. Wikipedia reflects what the references state. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The film was not considered lost. The references make this very clear specifically this one (It was never really "lost": rather, it was just a little too weird to become widely available) and this one and plus a dozen of justifications made in this talk page with sources by showing different screenings in different years. Your sources are weaker than the sources I've given. There is no "personal belief" here, I'm not POV pushing, you are "owning" this article rather. My edits are justified with sources and reflects the sources, both on article and both with this talk page. Wikipedia reflects what the references state, you deleted two pieces of information that was supported with sources. Not just mine either, you deleted two user's referenced contributions without a valid reason. Wikipedia reflects what the references state, proper references show it was never lost. You are sticking to a few weak rushed unreliable and inaccurate early reports, I'm giving you a properly researched university source. Tehonk (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The references I pointed out literally say "lost". For some reason you seem to want it not to be labeled that way but the references say otherwise. Even your first reference talks about how it was unseen and unknown. You are edit warring and are incorrect about what the references state. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

And the references I pointed out literally say "was never lost". For some reason you seem to want to own this article to yourself but the -proper- references say otherwise. Yes my reference talks about how it was not widely known, and literally say "was not lost". You are edit warring and are incorrect about what the references state. To be able to say it was "considered lost", you need to show a source that states it was "considered lost" from a time before its restoration process began, ie. before 2017, you can't do that and you are sticking to the initial rushed and unreliable reports that was later corrected by more proper sources. Not to mention I even showed you a screening in 2000s. So -when- was it "considered lost" exactly?Tehonk (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It does not say "was never lost" it says "It was never really "lost": rather, it was just a little too weird to become widely available". If something is believed lost for decades but then is discovered and remastered it doesn't retroactively become never lost. The key word is "believed" which it was. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It does say exactly "It was never really 'lost'" which means "it was never really lost" which means it literally says "it was not lost" but instead was not widely known. You need to prove it was "believed lost for decades" with contemporary sources. I showed you contemporary sources from different years through decades that proves there was no such believe, you can't do the same. And I have a better & more reliable source than your gizmodos that literally say it was never really lost, and nowhere it says it was believed lost for decades or any time in history. Something not widely known does not have the same meaning as "lost", there are public screenings through years so how was it believed lost for decades? There is even a screening in 2000s, when it was "believed" lost exactly? Show a source that supports that claim before 2017. Tehonk (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Look at the first thing I wrote in this section. I did exactly that. The problem is you seem to think you get to dictate what is or isn't acceptable as well as how it should be interpreted. You are wrong. You aren't even attempting to discuss things but instead keep trying to bulldoze your views into the article. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

No you did not do exactly that. I'm asking for -contemporary- sources to prove your claim "believed lost for decades", I'm asking you show a source that supports that claim before 2017. The weak sources you give are from this year. 4 years after its restoration was already began, ie. in a time where it was already widely known. It can't be a proof of a claim like that. Something can't retroactively become lost. Show a source from these decades if it was "believed lost for decades", I already showed numerous sources that proves contrary. You can't even answer the question when was it "believed" lost exactly after presenting the truths with sources to you. You are throwing something "it was believed lost for decades OK?" without being able to support or prove it. The problem is you seem to think this article and Wikipedia belongs to you and we are not allowed to make edits you don't like. I don't bulldoze "my views", I'm supporting my claims with dozens of proofs and you can't do the same, instead of using common sense you are making it personal and being disruptive, you are blindly destroying referenced contributions of multiple people without a valid reason. Tehonk (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

And as I said you don't get to demand that certain sources which meet your arbitrary standard are the only ones used. You have been told numerous times to get a third opinion and you continue to avoid it. I believe it is because you know you are wrong. Every time I attempt to meet you in the middle (e.g. the release date) you push the line further and make more demands. You aren't actually attempting to reach a consensus but instead are just trying to push your own version through. I provided valid and verifiable references for everything you asked for. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"You have been told numerous times to get a third opinion" - where?, "you continue to avoid it" - I don't avoid anything, I would be happy, I'm the one who contacted a third person who then warned you, I'm the one who contacted film project for your boxoffice magazine is not reliable claim which you then turn it into something else. I believe it is because you know you are wrong. You don't try to meet in the anywhere, you completely destroyed every edit by your complete reversions and removed referenced information, not just mine someone else's too. I provided valid and verifiable references for everything I changed. You need to provide valid sources for your claims to get your consensus. You are posting something that is impossible to be an evidence to the kind of thing you claim and when you are challenged you say "you don't get to demand certain sources", no you are obliged to prove your claims with sources that will prove it, the onus is on you. I proved every one of my claim, you can't. Tehonk (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The most recent time was here. But as you know I started a dispute resolution which may be why you are suddenly willing to discuss after yet another blind revert. I did provide valid references that explicitly say "lost". Since you refuse to discuss things in good faith and be open to edits that are anything other than your own preferred version we will use dispute resolution. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You got the same warning text, can I call you were avoiding it until now then? I'm just not experienced with these things, there were lots of links, RfC etc.. was gonna ask the same user which option would be best later because you are not willing to meet in anywhere and you made it kinda personal at this point. If you check this talk page I'm the one who was willing to and did the most discussing here. Just yesterday you did lots of blind reverts without using talk page and only came here last unwillingly. And I did provide valid references that explicitly say "not lost". Your lack of good faith is apparent even in the your overview on dispute resolution page. You are still talking about release date when I explained it to you 5+ times and told you numerous times in this page I only changed "a XXXX movie" part because I found it more appropriate to call it with production year in the lead rather than 2019. That was not a "release date" change, that part is not always written with release date, there are many cases where XXXX in "a XXXX movie" is a production year. I didn't need to provide a source to change that because production year was already mentioned. I said "not a 2019 movie" and changed it to production year. I did not make or claim any release date change. This is called manipulation, there is zero good faith in you still trying to clinging to it like it was/is the issue when it was explained to you more than 5 times. I believe it's because you know you are wrong in the actual issue, portraying long-post non-issue as the actual issue. Tehonk (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• IndieWire "the lost film"
• Pittburgh Post Gazette "George Romero’s lost film"
• Den of Geek "How George Romero’s Long Lost Film Was Found"
• Polygon "George A. Romero’s rediscovered ‘lost film’"
• Variety "considered lost until a print surfaced in 2018"

All of the above are valid and verifiable sources that call the film "lost". Notfrompedro (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

All of these are disputed in my first long message in this talk page with better proofs. You couldn't dispute anything in that post and you just continually ignore it. All of these links are from 2021, you need contemporary sources to prove your claim of "believed lost for decades", you need a source from before all of these PR noise began, that call it lost or considered lost, ie. from before 2018 or 2017. Something can't retroactively become lost or "believed lost for decades" all of a sudden, show contemporary sources that proves it was "believed lost" previously. I provided contemporary sources showing different releases through years including 2000s and asked you "when was it believed lost -exactly- in this case?" and a university source that has much more details than any of your sources which explicitly say was never lost. I mean just look at that last quote in your last link "considered lost until a print surfaced in 2018", but you, yourself changed that to 2017 even before I made any edits in this page, I can see that from page's history. Because with other sources it turned out it was sent to Romero's wife in 2017. Things can get rushy, inaccurate reports and they can be corrected later with better sources. So you, yourself already acknowledged at some point that last link you are showing here as proof was wrong and inaccurate, before I even made any edits on this page.

You are quoting the title from polygon link, how about these parts from the article content itself: "It’s tough to argue that the film was “lost” in the traditional way. The Amusement Park was never intended for wide release" - quasi-lost 1973 George A. Romero film (oh btw it calls it 1973 film too, look at that)

Again, you are quoting only the title from denofgeek, what about this part from the actual content of the link: “I know a lot of people have been using the word ‘lost,’ but it wasn’t really quite lost,” says Romero’s widow Tehonk (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

These are not "all disputed" in earlier parts of the thread as I never mentioned them until now. I also added a book with a quote from 2015 which you blindly reverted. You are edit warring and refuse to actually engage. My next step is a WP:3RR report. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

How do you not understand that if the article clarifies that it wasn't actually lost that would only happen because it was considered lost? The word "considered" is the key here. Regardless you have been reported. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)