Talk:The Manster

message: The intro says that it has "creative use of special effects" but then doesn't go on to explain that. Can we get some more detail?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.255.148 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I made this page with reviews, promotional material, et cetera: 
http://kristian.anapnea.net/manster/
May I suggest it gets added to "External Links"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.211.216 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informative page 

message: So I'm a bit confused with the production country and release date of this film. Stuart Galbraith IV's book The Japanese Filmography states that it was released in 1962, but no release date for 1959 at all. He emphasiszes that it's an American production, filmed in Japan. This also goes for the American Film Institute who state a similar thing. This also goes for Video WatchDog creator Tim Lucas who mentions it being an American production filmed in Japan. The Monthly Film Bulletin notes it's an American Japanese co-production without going into details (this is a review from 1961 mind you) while Keep Watching the Skies! book calls it an American and Japanese co-production, but doesn't go against state why it would be this way, something that the AFI and Galbraith IV's book does do. 
Until we get some strong sources that go into detail about why or why it is not part of these productions, I think we should wait it out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree. If anyone can find info that the film was indeed an American/Japanese co-production, please do. If not, then we'll just keep it written as an American film. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , this site is not exactly follow WP:RS, but it may point us in the right direction. This site has many articles from the press release and openly admits that there is not a lot known about the production of the film, as even the year it was made is up for debate. The article that interests me the most is the one from The Pacific Stars & Stripes which has a small article on the film reportedly from the 1959 issue states the film opening in Japan in 1959. Other people I've heard say they have Japanese documents covering the film, but it is labeled a "foreign" production in Japanese sources. I'm strongly leaning towards the American production solely for now with that info, but it does appear to have been shown in Japan in 1959...from this single source. Hmm. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

text: You might as well say it was filmed on the moon as well before stating content without a source. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Before we keep adding the same AllMovie source which goes against what three other sources state, the only information I can come up with is a production company titled "United Artists of Japan". However, according to this book, its an American production company. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Date and Production country

message: Please don't give information regarding this date without a source. The last edit suggested it was in Galbraith IV's book, which I have in my hand. There is nothing regarding the 1950s in that book. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: AllMovie specifically states a US release, which goes against all other major sources (Galbraith, American Film Institute (which has specific details about a premiere)). Your unverified, unsourced, original research does not really add up to much here. Where's the source? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by edits you made that were removed, you added a 1959 release date citing AllMovie (which does not state anything about a Japanese release date) and a wikipedia article to a newspaper with no context to when it said what you claim. That's not good enough content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I've been come a bit more of a strict editor since then and said it was at least interesting, but as you see, I did not add it as a source to the article. Its from a fansite. If we can source it directly to the newspaper then it might be ok. But we would need a page number for that newspaper article either way and find someone who can source it to that. I've tried newspaper archives online, but can't find a match for this article yet. Beyond that, I have not found any other source claiming the 1959 date and have definitely have found contradictory evidence. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Whups. My bad, the image does state a release. It would still require a page number however. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The AllMovie source is very clear. It says " Release Date - Jul 1, 1959 (USA - Unknown)". Where are you getting a Japanese release date from this? I'm not kidding, you are taking information from a self-published fan site by no one I can tell is an authority on the film other than having an impressive collection of unverified materials. It's a good start for me or you shutting down the argument on whether the film was released at this period or not, but its not concrete. As for your "What other contradictory evidence have you found that it wasn't released in 1959?", I don't need to provide any because you have not provided any concrete information. Per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" Don't got the source, then you do not have the content. Personal contacts obviously wouldn't really hold up, can't really cite a personal conversation with someone, even though I know you are kidding. So no, we don't just put information in and hope someone will source it later if you have it, add it. If you don't, then have some patience and eventually you will have some content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not really agree with your idea on how to interpret the AllMovie source, specifically the "it more than likely says". It either says it does or not does not, and I can not imagine what the USA text would mean otherwise. I'm not saying if you combined them it would definitely suggest that it was released in that year. For the record, I do not doubt that is the correct release date, but we still need a source that doesn't "kinda sorta say that", we need one that says it (see WP:STICKTOSOURCE). Do you read the rules I post to you? Because if so, I am not really sure how you think you are following them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

text: We shouldn't use it because it does not come from a reliable source (see WP:RSSELF). Like, let's say someone uploaded that some image hosting site, and someone else uploaded it and started editing it around to state different things. That's why we use published sources when dealing with this material, not things people can edit to cause false information swimming around. It's a good starting point, but we need to find a published source containing the articles information. We have not yet, without using fansites (see WP:SPS). I would not deny that several pages have unpublished and unsourced content, but like all pages breaking the rules or not following them, this content will just eventually be removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I removed the bmoviecentral site (nothing on the page indicates where it was released and the site itself appears to be a b-movie fansite. Fails WP:RS). As for the others, remember WP:STICKTOSOURCE, don't mention things (i.e: trivia) you personally find interesting. The source states two people, does not state they are the same person and this person does not seem to be involved in special effects otherwise. Trivial, and unsupported by your sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Bring your new definitions of published and what is or isn't trivial after reading MOS:TRIVIA, WP:SPS and WP:RS. As for films stating The Manster (1959), I've found several that say The Manster (1962), in fact take a look for yourself. I really insist you bring your findings to WP:FILM's talk page. I don't think I can convince you further and your lack of posting there suggests you already know the conclusion. As for "aren't all websites published", WP:SOURCE states " Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".[6] Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." and "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." As for black and white information, I don't disagree that it's slightly more interesting, but there is very little documentation about this film. If you can find a source that makes specific detail about it being and black and white and that it was a unique or special element, then re-add it. Otherwise, its trivial. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

text: There's a lot of "i assume" and "everybody this" and "nobody that". It's not my definition of published, its Wikipedias, and it definately ranks peer-reviewed sources (i.e: journals, published books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) over fan sites with no authority. Made to public in this case, means, you could get this information (i.e: you can buy a book/newspaper/etc.). As for the whole released in Japan details, I have yet to find published modern reviews referring to it as a Japanese production. Tim Lucas, who has dedicated his life to writing about writing about these types of genres films specifically states it's an American production filmed in Japan. As does do the other sources backing it up. If you want to use fansites as a source or the multitude of other things you want to do, take it elsewhere as your problem with the sources goes above and beyond The Manster article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Read WP:RS/IMDb, WP:SPS and WP:OR and all your questions will be revealed before your very eyes. Except one, which is we would not put as a Japanese co-production because there does not appear to be any Japanese production company behind it. 
We do not use IMDb because its content is submitted be users, and therfore fails WP:RS. You don't appear to be listening to me, so from here on in if you can't read the rules or take my suggestions I do not have much further to say. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Sorry to follow-up, but arguing with me and combing together bits and pieces of clues is not a way to conclude anything here. So is it unusual that it was released in Japan first? A little, yes. Does it make anything you are trying to suggest proven? It does not in any way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Cool story. But you still need a source to make any of it worth its two cents here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

text: You did not actually state what the source was saying, which is really against the rules. The source referred to them as an associate producer, not a producer. There is only one person credited to being a producer which is currently in the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 1959

message: I've removed the additions of the TCM article. The article has some interesting point of view, but it does a few things that don't make me think its reliable. Namely, it contradicts itself, it makes suggestions of what potentially could be (which was listed as fact), and the edits removed other content. There is countless contradicting information on the article, so just applying it without any context is not what I'd consider appropriate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have read Galbraiths guide, he mentions he does include non-Japanese productions and specifically references The Manster. Everything else you state is basically speculation. Again, unless you quote me text it just suggests to me you either a: do not read sources or b: are unable to do so. mAndrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Again, Aimono was an associate producer (see our previous conversation above). I am going to say this once more, and then I will ignore you as you are not getting it. We do not post original research, you are making conclusions that are not stating what the source actually states. You have been banned before for this and you have claimed that sources matter to you, but you are not providing anything new to the table other than the same wiki editing habits that had you banned previously. Please show you have the competence to read the links in this message and not edit the article unless you can find some hard evidence. If you have questions, ask me on the talk page, but if its not anything not stated here already, I probably will not reply. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I would suggest less on just googling peoples name any word you are trying to source and crediting it to a database that does not seem to cater any information on how its information is gathered or sourced. Find published sources, databases that actually state how their information is gathered, etc. I am not disagreeing with you the a Japanese person may have been involved in the production at one point, but its not clear what was done and what company the producers are representing. I appreciate you wanting clarified information, but do not fill in the blanks. Please note, these are not my rules or me trying to get my way, this is me trying to follow the rules of Wikipedia which I have wikilinked to you countless times before. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: TCM article

message: There are clearly some sources that state 1959 as a release but contradict the Galbraith book and the sources added were stating they were in the United States, not Japan. I've removed them because they were not Sticking to the source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As a heads up, we don't use Blu-Ray.com as a source for information. See WP:RSP/BLURAY for more information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 1959 notice

message: AllMovie.com lists the specific theatrical Japanese release date, it actually says July 1, 1959 as the first ever release date of the film. .Next to that it says "USA-Unknown", which means they weren't sure of the USA release date. But it specifically lists the first theatrtical showing as being on July 1, 1959.  AllMovie is a reference source that is used throughout wikipedia, it is a legitimate source. And it gives the exact release date in 1959, so there's nothing even questionable about this.
:Please see the discussion above on it, I can't find any sources backing up a USA release for 1959. You also states what the USA-Unknown means, can you show me where on the site it means that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The AllMovie source says "Release Date - July 1, 1959 (USA - Unknown)" -- That means the film was FIRST RELEASED theatrically on July 1, 1959. But they didn't know the exact USA release date, so they wrote (USA - Unknown). But all that really matters is the film's original release date which they plainly state was July 1, 1959. (The 1962 USA release info is mentioned later on in the main body of the article). EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It does matter, because I can't find any other source backing up an American release for this date. Even copies of Famous Monsters of Filmland only promote the film. Absolutely nothing on a US release on Newspapers.com either (but several closer to the 1960s date). So no, AllMovie, which is an alright source, but is simply wrong in this case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no 1959 release date in the US.  It was released in Japan in 1959.  It was only released in the USA in 1962. The two dates have been clearly established.   That's why you can't find a 1959 release date for the US. AllMovie lists the originasl release date as July 1, 1959, and the Stuart Galbraith book on Japanese movies lists that it was released in the US in 1962 on a double bill with "Eyes Without a Face". 1959 was the original release date, and 1962 was the US release date. It's all documented, yet you persist in turning this into a mystery of some sort. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying to list as the Japanese release. Just list it as the film's original theatrical release in general. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says "USA-Unknown" as you have just stated, which is not the case from the above mentioned items, so regardless, you are still going against WP:STICKTOSOURCE, specifically that "Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." In this case, you are trying to state something the source is not stating. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

text: The main point is to finally identify the film as a 50's horror film, not a 1962 film. Thank you for changing that. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The main point is should be to reflect what sources state, which you is not what you have done in your previous updates/edits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: AllMovie source

message: I've found a date and copies of the magazine that was linked above relating to the release of the newspaper. It can be found here here. I've supplemented the article with this information, so now we can finally add a source of release to this obscure little film oddity. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The main point is to finally identify the film as a 50's horror film, not a 1962 film. Thank you for changing that. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The main point is should be to reflect what sources state, which you is not what you have done in your previous updates/edits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Update