Talk:Children of Men/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Cause of the Societal Collapse

Did society collapse because of the infertility? This article seems to think so but i believe that in a conversation between the lead actor and Michael Caine Caine mentions that the world went to hell before infertility set in. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.117.111.166 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Content removed

Arcayne removed the following content with the claim of original research:

Critics found Children of Men noteworthy for its heightened sense of realism, made possible with long, extended takes shot with a handheld camera and post-production techniques which joined the takes together.

As I see it, this content is an accurate (but incomplete) summary of the production and theme sections per WP:LEAD. It needs expansion. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of that joining stuff, was there ever any sort of confirmation that the longer shots were faked (I think the one suspected of such was the running ginfight through Bexhill). I know there was the one report, but did that ever bear any fruit?Arcayne 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As you already know, Alain Bielik discussed this with Double Negative and published it in VFX World. The long shots are blended together from other extended takes to make them even longer. It's a technical detail. This is why writers like Jim Ridley have observed, "almost everyone who's written about Children of Men has talked about [Cuarón's] use of long, unbroken takes..." It's one of the most noteworthy aspects of the film, and it's discussed in technical detail in the production section, and in thematic detail in the themes section, and belongs in the lead per WP:LEAD. Cuarón and Lubezki purposefully set out to use long shots to "give a balance between character and social environment," allowing characters to "blend" into the shot itself. Cuarón describes the principle behind the long takes: "We would try to create a moment of truthfulness in which the camera would be there just to register that moment of truthfulness." The vfx department simply smoothed over the rough edges, making the long shots appear longer with seamless transitions, making the impossible, possible. —Viriditas | Talk 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That clears it up for me. Thanks for the lowdown. Might be a good idea to actually see this movie based on all these merits... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Critic Nate Loomis wrote: "Though Children of Men is heavily stylized, it is the film's realism that is most stunning." Critic Skip Sheffield also said: "Much of 'Children' is shot with hand-held camera to give it newsreel realism." —Viriditas | Talk 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The citation given in the article didn't actually establish that "unofficial sources" reported that the battle scene was done in five separate takes over two locations. By all accounts, the long 6-minute take is a real, unspliced take. Bryantheis 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the cinematographer it was a single take, the final take of the last day in the last bit of light from the day. OR though, I don't have a cite, I just heard him say it. User:Pedant 03:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also the reference in this sentence: "Although it has been commonly reported that both this scene and a later climactic battle scene were filmed in continuous shots,[28] unofficial sources indicate that the latter was filmed in five separate takes over two locations and then seamlessly stitched together to give the appearance of a single take.[29]" does not say anything about that shot not being one single shot. I think the sentence needs removing, as I rather believe the production staff over the uncited 'unofficial source'. User:Pedant 03:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The source appears to be correct, and quotes official lead VFX production team members. Could you visit the source and rewrite it? —Viriditas | Talk 07:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Temp page

In order to prevent edit warring in the main article space and in the hopes of promoting harmonious and collaborative editing, a temp page has been setup as a workspace: Talk:Children of Men/Temp. The cast section was successfully composed on this page, and I hope we can do the same with the lead. Please join in and help out. —Viriditas | Talk 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast section

Back to the cast section, because I'm interested in the little guys: should we add lesser actors such as Danny Huston, Pam Ferris and Peter Mullan, all of whom are mentioned in the plot section? What about those who are not mentioned? In what context? I was thinking it may help, since minor character's names tend to bleed together, to group the cast section first in order of importance (which is rather how it is now) and then list the lesser characters by group; ie. the Fishes, the refugee camp, etc. I'm not saying we should list everyone, of course, but it may be interesting to play with. I'll try to see if I can find a FA that has done this in the past, because I know I've seen it somewhere. María: (habla ~ cosas) 13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see anything against adding a small trailer sentence like, "so and so plays so and so, a member of the group, the Fishes." I would keep it really short because they aren't major players. --Beanssnaeb 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected because there seems to have been quite a bit of edit warring for days, so hopefully protection will help to calm things down. Let me know when you're ready to start editing again. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding a "Ark of Arts" section

I added a "Ark of Arts" section in the article. It would be good to document all the collected works in that ark, as showed in the movie as in the original novel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodrigopenalba (talk • contribs) 08:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC).--Rodrigopenalba 08:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is significant to the article as it's own section and it should be removed. --Beanssnaeb 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's maybe as significant as the soundtrack & music section. I think it should serve as an example of how Art & Aesthetics is part of the plot of this dystopia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodrigopenalba (talk • contribs) 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

It's important for several reasons. At present, the content is on the temp page, but I intend to split the theme section and merge this into the new subarticle. —Viriditas | Talk 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to fleshing out a fictional world and perhaps illuminating the filmmaker's themes, it is more pragmatically valuable for viewers of the movie to find references to the real-life works of art prominently displayed in the Ark. I am baffled as to why Radiohead's contribution is in the article but Pablo Picasso's is deemed insignificant.MatthewDaly 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The section and related section were removed by several editors due to OR allegations and lack of sources. I believe there are good sources available and I will take another look. —Viriditas | Talk 10:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

At least three links do not appear to meet WP:ATT and may be removed:

1. http://thecelebritycafe.com/movies/full_review/12073.html
2. http://www.post-apocalypse.co.uk/childrenofmen.html
3. http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.html?id=3444

—Viriditas | Talk 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

40 kilobyte warning

I recommend splitting the production (Production of Children of Men) and theme sections (Themes in Children of Men) into new articles. The new articles should contain subsections. —Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Current length is fine, and films like these don't really need sub-articles, rather further effective use of summary style. WikiNew 21:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Films just like this one make good use of sub-articles (2001, Blade Runner and V for Vendetta spring to mind) and I have an additional 40Kb of material to add to the article. A number of incomplete tasks on the temp page also increase the projected length. There's no hurry to split now, but the theme section will be ready in a few days or so. —Viriditas | Talk 03:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

40kb is fine. The "true" size of the article is not reflected by the number that appears when you click the edit button, because that number gives you the size of the article as it is with all the HTML and code hidden away. The size of the article should be reflected by the prose of the article. If the prose of the article begins to reach upwards of 50kb, then I could see finding areas to split. If the number, when in the editing section, reaches upwards of 60kb, I would think it can be safe to assume that the prose of the article has surpassed the 40kb mark. But, you can always just copy everything on the face of the article and save it to WORD and then see how large it really is on the surface. Article size is a MOS, and is not only about the size of the prose, but of the readibility of the section. If you can read it easily, even if it's a large section, then it's ok. Superman is 80kb in the editing screen, but it's FA. It's about how you organize and write it up. I think the themes section is fine, but if it continues to grow then you may need to subsection it. Production could definitely use some subsections. I personally believe in the "writing, casting, directing" subs of a production section. It helps break down the section into neat parts and they are generally the things most important to that section anyway. Just my thoughts on it all.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  04:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer a standard subtopic structure like writing, casting, directing, but there is great overlap in this film. Owen was a writer, as was the director, and the cast has its own section. Most important subsection would be "Single shot sequences", describing the roadside ambush and the Bexhill battle scenes. I'm not sure, but I think the birth scene should also fall under the single shot sequence section. —Viriditas | Talk 12:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas's response

(This query by Arcayne was originally added to User_talk:Viriditas after Arcayne was asked many times not to use my talk page) You made mention of articles being recommended as 900 words in length. Can you tell me where you found this please?Arcayne 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines discusses recommended plot length. As for the plot points you describe, yes they can be sourced. The sound of children laughing in the credits is not a plot point. —Viriditas | Talk 21:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is. It happens as and observable part of the movie as it is fading to black. As the movie ended with Kee and her baby getting picked up byt the ship for the Human Project, followed by the sounds of children laughing. I still think that the Shantih belongs as a theatic component, but failing to mention the laughter of children is a deceptive edit. Btw, call reverts reverts, pls. Your edit summaries fail to mention when you are reverting.Arcayne 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And I would like to ask you to remain civil. Accusing me of recruiting meat puppets is uncivil. While I support other contributors who feel the same way I do, it is no less than you have done repeatedly in the past. That two editors feel that the statmetns belong breates a new concensus. It stays. Move on, please.Arcayne 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, you seem to have returned to your previous disruptive behavior. The article and the plot section in particular is not the place for an "observable part of the movie", nor does anyone have to "cite where it is not part of the movie". This has been explained to you for months, yet you continue to obsessively buck consensus by adding non-plot points to a plot section. You have been asked repeatedly to stop adding non-plot points to the plot, and to provide reliable sources for your claims. Recruiting meatpuppets to help you is against policy, and the edit history shows you doing just that.[1] I will again ask you to please stop disrupting this article, stop gaming the system, and comply with Wikipedia policies. —Viriditas | Talk 23:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop being uncivil and disruptive. If you think I am creating sock puppets, meatpuppets or whatever, report it rather than slip it in an edit summary like a weasel. If I choose to support those edits I believe in, I will do so. If Every time. I choose to make edits you disagree with, It is best for you to have to find a way to live with it, since you don't own or govern the article. As the comments are an observable part of the movie, they stay. They do not need citation as they are part of the storyworld of the film. Asa plot "is the rendering and ordering of the events and actions of a story, particularly towards the achievement of some particular artistic or emotional effect., pointing out something that occurs within the scope of the movie as an objective - not subjective - occurrence, it belongs in the synopsis. Period. I will do you the small kindness of ignoring your petty accusations.Arcayne 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am following WP policies. You just don't understand them well enough to interpret them correctly. Maybe you should revisit how to write an article.Arcayne 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The assertion is not that you are creating sockpuppets, Arcayne; it is, rather, that you are continuously attempting to recruit other editors to further your agendas which have been previously settled (with you at fault) on this talk page and elsewhere. I can cite a few more examples other than the one that Viriditas provided, in case we need a refresher. It is insane that this article is continuously subject to the same old song and dance. It's disruptive and it doesn't get the article any closer to Featured Article status. Back off, both of you. I'm removing the statement because, for the millionth time, it isn't part of the plot. María: (habla ~ cosas) 00:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That is simply inaccurate, Maria. If I tell another, established editor who made an edit on their own that I support their edits, esp. when Viriditas has done the same thing with two other eitors here and here, and did such with you, I might add.

Accusations aside, we have two editors who agree that some mention of the children's laughter needs to be made. It may very well be that two disagree. In that case, we do not have a concensus on whether it belongs or not. Personally, I think it is bizarre that someone would want to hide an observable part of the film from the readership, but that is just me. It would seem prudent at this point to seek an outside editor unconnected to any of us. I certainly feel it belongs, and I will stand up to folk who want to conceal a part of the movie from the readership. If you want to call that disruptive, then perhaps realize who is doing all the reverting and name-calling.Arcayne 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The two editors you claim agree with you have not responded to queries on their talk page, and their edits appear to be a form of meatpuppeting when your canvassing is taken into account. You were asked to provide reliable sources for your assertion that the sound of children laughing is part of the plot: You have not done so. Instead, you continue to disruptively edit, inserting non-plot content based on your personal opinion. This has been explained to you by many editors over a period of months. —Viriditas | Talk 02:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not responsible for their choice to not respond to you, Viriditas. I know that I wouldn't, given the choice. You consider it non-plot. I do. Therein lies the difference. It is an observable part of the movie (within thescope of the movieworld) and, as the future of mankind at the end of the movie is left with Kee's baby, the laughter of children means (to me, which is of course OR) that mankind doesn't die out. It should be a part of the Themes section, but only one reviewer has alluded to it, and not directly. You cannot seriously expect me to allow the article to be crippled by not including an important part of the plot, or tell me it doesn't belong in the article. Two different editors have argued for it, and you reverted them (like so many others). Your edits in this regard are disruptive, and this has been explained to you by at least two different, established editors over a period of months, and yet you continue to disrupt the editing process by insisting something that exists doesn't.Arcayne 02:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Please stop disruptively forcing your opinions into articles against the consensus of active editors; meatpuppets who don't discuss or support their edits don't count towards consensus and never will no matter how many editors you canvas. I've reviewed ~75 reliable sources on this topic, none of which refer to the audio in the credits as part of the plot. Please familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies and work constructively to improve this article, not make it less accurate. This is a simple request that has been made of you dozens of times. Please respect it. Editorial contributions that are challeneged require substantiation. Please do not continue to violate policy and edit war in this article. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Just to establish first guys, that I'm not an admin, or trying to shove my nose into where it doesn't belong. However, over the past like, what 3 months? You guys have been continually arguing, we've had the article locked down for edit warring, etc. I'm not placing the blame on either of you, but the fact is that neither of you have had the best track record over the past while. How about both of you consider taking a break, before someone gets banned? It's just a suggestion. I mean, I'm all for discussing what should and shouldn't go into an article, but this is starting to get a little out of hand, and I don't want to see either of you banned. I'm just suggesting and hoping you guys can solve this. Disinclination 04:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I would like nothing more than to simply make the article better, and it seems that whateve I add is going to get reverted by Viriditas. There appear tobe serious OWN issues going on here, and I stepped in to retain another's edits which were, for the most part, valid. Reasoning has been provided forthe edits which has been tendentiously rejected. Viriditas has escalated the matter by slapping on troll warnings with colorfully uncivil edit summaries. I am - as I said before - waiting for the admin that Viriditas supposedly requested, to show up and render an opinion. Viri has repeatedly shown he would rather take cheap shots in the interim. I am here to make the article better, and the statementes in question expand the article, not detract from it.Arcayne 04:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A wise man once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."[2] Your arguments have been addressed on talk and in the archives daily since January. There continues to be a lack of reliable sources for your edits, nor is there consensus for your additions. Experts have been consulted and have disagreed with your edits.[3] María's helpful comments on your talk page summarizes the problem.[4] No amount of personal attacks[5], user talk page vandalism [6], [7], article talk page vandalism[8], and edit warring[9], [10], [11] will obscure the issue. —Viriditas | Talk 06:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You might have listened more to that wise man, Viriditas. The only one choosing to continually edit war is you. You keep responding with escalating levels of uncivility. I only put a troll warning on your talk page because I honestly feel your behavior is trollish. It's called a good faith edit. You couldn't intimidate me into getting your way (when are you ever going to learn that that will never work with me?) by slapping a troll warning on the talk page, nor with your uncivil edit summaries. We disagree on a point of plot. Rather than waste thousands of words edit-warring on it, why not take a break for awhile? You are quite simply in the wrong here.

You are clearly showing a POV bias that isn't helpful to the article. We aren't talking about edits in January, or in February. We aren't talking about your 3rr or blank, unfounded accusations. We are talking abut something that I feel is a plot point, and that you do not. Plot points do not need citation, as they are observable, not subjective. If you think they do, please cite the following, taken from the synopsis:

Theo awakens to overhear Luke reveal that he staged the ambush to assassinate Julian. He intends to use Kee's baby as a political tool for his cause. Theo also overhears Luke issue orders for Theo to be killed. He intends to use Kee's baby as a political tool for his cause.

The point is, you cannot. No reviewer has discussed it, and the second and fourth sentences in particular are OR by dint of synthesis and or paraphrasing. However, it is part of the plot - an observable part of the movie, "Synopses are usually more in-depth than a mere "summary", and aim to give a fair idea of the topic." The statement in question gives a fair view of the topic, and the article suffers without its presence. You would have no mention of a specific piece of the article, which is peripherally cited here, here, andhere. However you aren't going to find a reviewer who mentions it, because it gives away the end of the movie, like letting it slip that Verbal Kint os Keyser Soze. They don't mention it because it is part of the movie's plot.

Once again, I have explained this clearly to you. Of course, I do so knowing full well it will not be enough for you, simply because it doesn't fit what you want for your article. Fortunately that is not the way we do things here. Your uncivil comments and behavior do not aid your cause, but rather detract from it. The submitted edit makes the article better and more inclusive, so far as plot is concerned.

Frankly, you really don't have any coin with me, Viriditas - I simply don't believe you claim that "experts" have been consulted. I asked for an admin or neutral editor to review the article withand without the changes, and am prepared to wait for them to weigh in. They haven't done so just yet. And while I respect the heck out of Maria, she is not quite a neutral party in this, as she is your pal. I've put the call out on a few boards (including WikiFilms and others), and we should hear back from someone in a day or so. Please try to remain calm in the interimArcayne 07:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The text you claim cannot be sourced as plot can in fact be sourced, and I have the cites. Please do some actual research. Your comments have been addressed and countered since January, experts have been consulted who have disagreed with you[[12]], and your non-plot additions to tbe plot section remain unsourced. Also, please stop vandalizing the talk page, violating the 3RR (you just reverted four times in 24 hours), assuming bad faith, and making personal attacks. —Viriditas | Talk 08:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The expert opinion you refer to regards another, unrelated statement. The assumption of bad faith is not a blindfold to bad behavior. Your accusations are unfounded. Wait for an admin to weigh in on this matter of a plot point, and stop muddying the waters with unfounded accusations. You can keep calling it a non-plot point. You will still be mistaken, Viriditas. Contributing to the talk page, and making good faith edits to remove trollish headers is not 3RR. I notice you didn't source the other plot points, either. hmmm.Arcayne 08:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You vandalized my user page and this talk page by changing my comments. You violated the 3RR by reverting whole or in part four times in less than 24 hours. And, you are trying to distract away from unsourced material you keep adding to the article by referring to previously sourced material that already appears cited in the article. I will go ahead and source the entire plot section to stop your trolling. —Viriditas | Talk 09:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Source request

The screen fades and the text "Children of Men" appears on the screen and the sound of laughing children can be heard.

(content of posts moved to bottom under new header, Comment Discussion, as the conversations took place after the following)

That isn't the edit present in the plot synopsis, Vriditas. Please check the article again. As it is part of the plot, it is not subject to citation. this is why the plot itself does not have citations. As the laughter is part of the plot, it doesn't need citation. Just because you don't think it is part of the plot doesn't magically remove it fromt he plot. As I think it is, it stays.Arcayne 03:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to hold your hand through reading basic WP policy, Viriditas. Take a break and review it. There are a total of three editors who agree that the statement should remain. Three editors make for a concensus. You might want to respect that, instead of calling them meat puppets, which is rude, uncivil and tendentious. Next, you will suggest that they are all secretly my sock-puppet accounts - you seem to like doing that too. This is why your disruptive commentary has no weight with me. Editorial contribution comes form all sectors, and is going to contradict your opinions quite often. i suggest you either get used to it, or go away. Three editors says it should stay. If you want, find an unconnected editor or admin to independently review the article both ways. So long as they aren't connected to you, I will abide by their findings,as I have in the past. I don't think you are confident enough to do that, but you can always prove me wrong. As it is part of the synopsis of the movie, it stays. Synopsis includes more than just the plot. Why do you keep edit-warring over this? Lighten up, sport.Arcayne 03:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling and vandalizing the talk page and edit warring on the main page. A source request has been made, and so far User:Booksworm and User:PsychoJosh have not responded to queries on their talk page. Informed consensus exists on talk and in the talk archives against unsourced inclusion of non-plot points in the plot section. I would encourage you not to continue inviting meatpuppets to help you edit war. —Viriditas | Talk 03:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your disruptive definitions of trolling and vandalism are uniquely yours, Viri. I noticed the source request, and noticed that you didn't seem to request an admin or unconnected editor to assist in assessing the article.

Yes, calling other editors meat-puppets is so very civil. I didn't invite them to post, but I will advise them that their opinion is further needed. Maybe you want to go ahead and accuse me of sock-puppetry again? First it was concensus, and then when it assembled against your bizarre opposition, you switched tactics,asking for "informed" concensus. That they editied, and weren't new users, makes them informed. I am sure you would define it differently, but it really doesn't matter. Simply be quiet and await an admin. I still don't think you can wait, though.Arcayne 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And you may want to re-read the definition of trolling while you are waiting. You might find more than a passing resemblance.Arcayne 04:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Booksworm" just replied to my request for sources: "I would like to state that I cannot give you the source the information..."[13] Now that is settled, stop adding unsourced, unverifiable information to Wikipedia. There is not a single reliable source that claims the audio in the credits is part of the plot. —Viriditas | Talk 08:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not settled. He cannot cite it because it is part of the movie. Had you not been so qick to remove it from your talk page (I believe you referred to his comments as trolling, too), you might have caught that he couldn't cite something that was part of the plot without the DVD (which hasn't been released). Wait for the admin. I'm still thinking you will be unable to do so.Arcayne 08:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been explained to you on a daily basis since January, by many editors, so you have no excuse. Plot interpretations require reliable secondary, not primary sources. And, there are no secondary sources which call the audio in the credits "plot". There is nothing and nobody to wait for. —Viriditas | Talk 09:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to wait for the editor you suggested we wait for. Requests have been made for unbiased review. It is a part of the plot, and like the example above don't need the citation required for subjective analysis. Don't be a dick, and just wait. The worst that can happen is that an admin or senior editor tells you to back off and allow the text. I am confident enough in my position. Show some patience, if not confidence in yours. No current concensus has been reached on the plot statements. Relax.Arcayne 09:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Read my comments above. There is nothing to wait for. We don't add personal interpretations to articles. It is your personal interpretation that the sound of children laughing in the credits is part of the plot. Not a single reliable source supports this claim. Experts have explained this to you and consensus was reached on this issue. This is not a platform for your original research. I will be sourcing the entire plot section to solve this problem. —Viriditas | Talk 09:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The edits will remain until an admin has a chance to look over it. Period.Arcayne 10:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fun; invent a rule when you feel like it. Go ahead, write some policy or something. But, this isn't the place for it.—Viriditas | Talk 10:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I'll be waiting for the admin to square things away, and not relying on your "neutral" opinion on the matter. Dude, you've wasted an entire day warring over this, and for what? A sentence? How many editors do you need to scare away with your uncivil behavior. Just go away. Take a break. Stop being a dick . Please.Arcayne 10:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Read what it says below your edit box: "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." —Viriditas | Talk 11:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you seem much too upset to talk to now. I will wait until you calm down. Hopefully, an admin or neutral editor will come along and weigh in. You shouldn't have a problem with waiting, as you feel your opinion is correct. Arcayne 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue was settled a long time ago. Use RS; end of story. —Viriditas | Talk 11:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Discussion

The screen fades and the text "Children of Men" appears on the screen and the sound of laughing children can be heard.

A reliable source is required showing the importance of an audio clip in the credits to the plot. If one canot be provdided, the content will be removed according to policies. It is the responsibility of the editor adding content to support their edits per WP:ATT. Not a single reliable source discusses the audio in the credits as an important plot point. It is a subject of thematic interpretation, and should be discussed in that section using RS. —Viriditas | Talk 23:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I haven't seen this film (although, I really want to and even moreso after reading so much about it here). Second, and more to the point, I don't agree with your assertion that "the importance of an audio clip in the credits to the plot" has to be sourced. In my opinion, it's not like the sounds of children laughing accidentally happened and they said "ah, we'll just leave it in". The fact that it even appears in the film at all should be source enough to its "importance". That coupled with the fact that Alfonso Cuarón has stated, and is quoted in this article, "We wanted the end to be a glimpse of a possibility of hope, for the audience to invest their own sense of hope into that ending", shows me that the presense of children laughing (along with the entire ending of the film) has a purpose of being there. Obviously, placing any "reason" on the laughter's presense would be OR and very much go against Wikipedia's policy (and more importantly Cuarón's stated intentions), but simply noting the laughter's presense (as is what is currently being done in the article) is fine.

This has almost nothing to do with the situation at hand but,in my opinion, the entire argument that an observable part of a film is not "part of the plot" is ridiculous (again, nothing personal, just my observation). In film, and especially when dealing with a filmmaker such as Cuarón who is so intensely focused on visuals and symbolism, everything is plot. Usually in Cuarón's case, he wants the audience to give the plot reason.

That's just one person's thoughts, though. Chickenmonkey 08:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal, unsourced interpretations are not acceptable. The sound of children laughing does not appear in the script, nor is it part of the plot: there is no reliable source that describes it as part of the plot, and it was originally added by Arcayne as original research. Read the talk archives. Arcayne has been trying to add original research to the article since January. I have multiple sources that discuss the audio tracks in the credits, none of which are classified as plot. —Viriditas | Talk 09:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood. Is the sound of children laughing in the film? Chickenmonkey 09:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it appears in the credits after the film has concluded, as do a number of other things, none of which have to do with plot - most of which concern theme. —Viriditas | Talk 10:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So, if a film faded to black and then an explosion was heard would that too be theme? What of a scene that appears after the credits, is that not plot either? It is of my opinion that you are the one interpreting the presense of laughing children. Do you know why laughing children are heard? I'll assume you don't. I know I don't. Nobody, with the exception of the filmmakers (and there is probably no intended reason for the laughing children going by the quoted statements), does. The fact is, it's there. The prolonged continuation of this astounds me. It's a single sentence. Chickenmonkey 10:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a single sentence here, and a single sentence there, and pretty soon we are back to where we started - original research. Not a single, reliable plot summary references the audio in the credits. It's interesting, and should be explored in the article, but what about the rest of the musc, credits, titles, etc. There's no end to it. This is an interpretation of an audio clip in the credits that is part of another interpretation, the "shanti", and The Wasteland; all of this is in the credits. It's not plot. —Viriditas | Talk 11:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's just it. Inclusion is not interpretation. From my understanding (and it very well may be skewed by not having seen the film) the laughter (as with the explosion in my earlier example) is plot. I believe I've spent enough time going in circles. I've stated my opinion and will readily accept that I may be wrong. Perhaps an admin will assess the situation and this can be moved on from. That's the last word from me.

wait, "antelope". That's the last word from me. Chickenmonkey 11:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's pure interpretation, and sourced inclusion in the theme section is actively encouraged. The credits support two themes: the absence of children (infertility) and hope for the future. The most important, related plot point where this theme appears is a scene in an empty, abandoned school, where Miriam tells Theo: "As the sound of the playgrounds faded, the despair set in. Very odd, what happens in a world without children's voices... I was there at the end." That's plot. Richard A. Blake puts the whole theory to rest: "At the end of this exhausting Journey, the film ends in profound, reflective silence." —Viriditas | Talk 14:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's simply your opinion, or what we call 'original research'. If it all bothers you so very much, go elsewhere. We can finish up here. :) Arcayne 11:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to source your claims. Show me a RS that describes those concepts as plot. This pet theory of yours should be examined more closely. Create a sub-page in your user space and source your ideas. Use the temp page. Unsourced content can be removed at any time. —Viriditas | Talk 11:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Created an Archive

...since it was getting pretty crowded here. The address for the Temp page under the eponymous section, near the top.Arcayne 11:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion re: laughing children

Really a fourth or fifth opinion, it looks like, but since I saw the movie: I'd move the laughing children to the Themes section; it dovetails nicely with Cuaron's statement regarding the conclusion of the film. The sound of laughing children is not immediately introduced or supported directly by events - it's a harbinger of things to come, not the very next step in the story, and as such I don't think it qualifies as plot. Well argued on both sides, though.

As a side note, there's some disturbing ownership issues going on. If neither of you is willing to budge on the problem right now, you might want to take this to a Request for Comment, or failing that, Mediation. Snuppy 12:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's been the informed consensus from the beginning. Move to theme section with sources and expand, tying it in to the abandoned school scene and the Wasteland motif. —Viriditas | Talk 12:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's been your OWN POV, for which you do not have concensus. Indeed, we will wait for the admin and third opinion A request has already been submitted.Arcayne 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Are we still going on about this?

Does anyone have any references in reliable sources independent of the movie itself mentioning the laughing? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The only source that exist only allude to it - much like those reviews and analyses that hint at the identity of Keyser Soze or that Bruce Willis' character in 6th Sense is in fact a ghost himself, or that Rathe in the film Young Sherlock Holmes is in fact Moriarty. It is the surprise ending. As well, it should be noted that a play by play of the plot is not usually referencable, as reviewers are not going to reiterate the film in its entirety. For example, no one has sourced where in this movie, Luke plotted to keep Kee's baby for the Fishes. However, it is an observable part of the plot, and it is part of the plot synopsis in the current article of CoM.

Furthermore, there is a concensus of at least four editors who feel the statement should remain where it is, in the plot. There are no citations of the laughter being a thematic component, so it cannot be entered as such, and it would be considered OR to decide it as such. To omit it completely is to pretend that it is not in the movie lessens the article. I would prefer the article be better rather than less than it could be.Arcayne 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find lots of sources that say Bruce Willis's character is a ghost, or that Rathe is Moriarity. Please come up with some sources backing up your interpretation, or please desist edit warring to force it into the article. This bullshit (because that's what it is) has gone on long enough. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. And since you have acted on Viri's behalf in the past, how on earth can you consider yourself neutral? I am not talking about a cabal, I am talking about a simple conflict of interest. And no, you cannot find sources written at the time the movie was in theaters that Willis' character is a ghost, because I tried to before using it as an example. 6 months, or a year later, sure, they will mention it, as the cat is out of the bag, but not while it is still in theaters. And edit-warring is at least a two-person game. Curious you didn't mention Viriditas in your admonition. Yes, your 'neutrality' is clear.

What is also clear that I will have to escalate this matter. I appreciate that you are an established admin, but your neutrality is in dispute here.Arcayne 01:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Viriditas. I only know of him from you bringing him up on my talk page, long previous. You've got your impartial admin. I'm sorry you're not terribly happy with the result. The fact remains that we don't include claims without sufficient references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I think this whole mess is a disgrace to the both of you, and if you two can't find a way to work together than you'll need to find a way to work apart, and accusing good-faith users of being meatpuppets, recruiting people t push your POV on talk pages, personal sniping, and all that garbage will no longer be tolerated. But, this is the talk page for discussing how to improve this article. To do so, we need sources for the claims made here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm here to improve the article. Since I left about 2-3 weeks ago, the editor running most of the show didn't really allow for edits. As for myself, I came back because the article in the interim has become a shambles.Arcayne 08:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Since your "unbiased" opinion has claimed that the laughter of children is not part of the plot, and does not have citation, where should it go?Arcayne 08:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere. Its importance and relevance is disputed, and there's no reference to back any view. Lots of things happen in this movie; it is not possible or desireable to describe every single moment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot

Is there a reason why the plot has been turned into 13, 3 sentence anorexic paragraphs?  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I just went through and edited it for flow, but it was like that when I got there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. I hadn't looked at the article in a couple weeks and was pleasantly surprised to see it had gone GA. Then I looked at the Plot section and was puzzled as to how it went GA. It's in horrendous shape. I did some clean-up, but the flow is primitive and lackluster. I looked back a bit in time and found this superior version from about 2 weeks ago. It needs some work, but the readability is much better. I'm tempted to take that version, tighten it up, and replace the current version wholesale. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  05:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and made the switch, but first reviewed all identifiable Plot edits made since Feb 28 (a lot of missing edit summaries!) and incorporated those that seemed significant. Apologies to any I missed or unintended slights, so feel free to re-edit, but try to keep it intelligible. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll go through and redo my edits, but it looks like you saved most of them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Human Project

A question about the lead - is there citation where it specifically says that Kee is "the greatest hope for humanity". I've checked the 3 citations listed after the sentence, and none of them use that phrasing.Arcayne 08:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that sentence saying that the Human Project is the greatest hope for humanity? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that's what I meant to say. Yes, the phrase "greatest hope for humanity" doesn't appear in any of the three citations.Arcayne 08:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Do you think that's a POV push or otherwise inappropriate? If you do and it's not in the references, I can't see any reason to keep it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would the exact phrase appear in the references? It's not a direct quote. The "greatest hope for humanity" is sourced to the reference listed: "And deliver us from Bexhill", The Observer, 2006-09-24. Retrieved on 2007-03-01: "The rebels intend that she be taken to 'the Human Project', a refuge somewhere abroad created by scientists, artists and other people of good will as the best hope of mankind, though this legendary place may well be a chimera." —Viriditas | Talk 08:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. Too bad, as it flowed well.Arcayne 08:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Then it's a misleading quote. The exact nature of the Human Project is left ambiguous. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To us maybe, but not to the sources cited. The supporting source, Romney, Jonathan (Jan-Feb 2007). "Green and Pleasant Land". Film Comment: 32-35. writes: "Kee is to meet a boat from the Human Project, an organization dedicated to the preservation of the human race." —Viriditas | Talk 08:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the reference was stating that the nature of the Human Project is left ambiguous; I don't have any strong opinion.

A better way of rephrasing my point: "Then the wording used in the article is incorrect. According to that reference, the nature of the Human Project is left ambiguous." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The text from the third cited source reads as follows: Guerrasio, Jason. "A New Humanity", Filmmaker Magazine, 2006-12-22. Retrieved on 2007-01-23: "Theo soon learns Kee is pregnant and is being brought to The Human Project, a group working towards the creation of a new society." —Viriditas | Talk 08:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources conflict, this is interpretive, and it's not strictly necessary for understanding. You can deal with conflicting claims in the body of the article, but keep the lead simple. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources are relatively consistent and reliable. The "best hope of mankind", is "an organization dedicated to the preservation of the human race", "a group working towards the creation of a new society". The characters are unsure if it exists (described as mythical by one reviewer) yet Cuaron uses the Human Project as a "metaphor for the possibility of the evolution of the human spirit, the evolution of human understanding." In other words, the director supports the notion of the Human Project as the greatest hope for humanity. Whether it is or not, seems to be a separate matter. We know it exists, but the characters don't realize it until the film's conclusion. No matter, the original wording does not conflict with the sources cited, but it can certainly be improved. —Viriditas | Talk 09:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent material for the themes section. Not so much, in the lead. Don't get too fancy in the lead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but keep in mind that it should be made clear in the lead that hope resides in the future of humanity. This is the thematic thrust of the film, and encapsulates the theme section, as a good lead serves as an overview. The putative nature of the Human Project could also be mentioned. It is accurate to describe the project in the lead as the greatest hope, however, other sources prefer to take a microcosmic view, and place the hope with Kee's child. I would like to see the lead do both. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that not OR editing by synthesis? Clearly, it isn't mentioned specifically by any source; it can't go in. You've argued this precise point many times before.Arcayne 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What synthesis? You seem to be confuing WP:NOR with WP:LEAD. The points I've raised above are all sourced, nor have I ever discussed this before. "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context..." This has nothing to do with OR in any way, and the sources fully support the assertions made in the article. If you feel it is OR to describe sourced thematic highlights in the lead per WP:LEAD, you are welcome to believe it, but it doesn't make any sense. —Viriditas | Talk 09:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, interpretive. Stick to the unadorned facts in the lead section; this is a movie about Theo and Kee fleeing to meet the Human Project. What that flight means, what the Human Project stands for, etc.... leave that for the body of the article - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Representing the theme section in the lead as an overview is perfectly acceptable. Kee's baby is the last hope for human reproduction, and the Human Project is the greatest hope for a new society. This is all fully sourced and is an integral part of the story. Film articles often represent the primary theme in the lead section. —Viriditas | Talk 09:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, very interpretive and not necessarily representative of the bulk of the references. This is too much to cram into the lead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As the man said, it's interpretive, and it's use is disputed. I am sure you can find a place for it in the Themes section. Remember that any info added will need to be sourced. Arcayne 09:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The information is sourced, represents a primary theme, is not disputed by any RS, and follows the example of WP:LEAD as an overview of the article. Educate yourself. Explore the FA-class film article category. The discussion of primary themes in the lead is quite common. Look at the lead for Casablanca (film) as one example. There are many more. —Viriditas | Talk 10:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked for the man's advice, and it has been provided. It's been decided that it is interpretive. Please move on.Arcayne 10:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't asked for anyone's advice, so I don't know what you are talking about. Please keep your comments on topic. You claimed the content wasn't sourced: I showed that it was. You claimed that it was synthesized OR, when in fact it was sourced, following WP:LEAD guidelines. You claimed it doesn't belong in the lead, and I showed you there is no such proscription, and that FA-class flm articles often describe primary themes in the lead. Feel free to directly address these points, but refrain from making off topic comments. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 10:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I can argue my own case here, thank you, and I'm here on my own. Now, let's talk about improving the article, hmm? It seems like it'd be a damn sight more useful to discuss style then to get into another Arcayne vs. Viriditas snipe-fest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead for Casablanca doesn't focus on themes at all; instead, it talks about the reasoning behind its continuing popularity. I don't think it'd be out of place to mention that Children of Men was critically acclaimed or nominated for a number of awards in the lead; this is typical in FA-class film articles. However, when describing the movie, it describes the primary conflict: an internal one, on the part of Rick Blaine. It doesn't try to suggest what this conflict means or what things symbolize (something I daresay we can do on stronger footing when talking about Casablanca). I suggest we do the same here: describe the primary conflict (Theo and Kee versus their numerous pursuers), and leave the article to tell the rest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the lead discusses "Rick's conflict between, in the words of one character, love and virtue: he must choose between his love for Ilsa and his need to do the right thing by helping her husband..." These are thematic components, and they are found in many FA-class film articles. There is no proscription against them. —Viriditas | Talk 10:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Casablanca, they're components of story, taken directly from the film, and they're not in dispute. The conflict of the story is an internal one, and these are the two feelings he's torn between.

Here, we have thematic elements not supported unanimously by either editors or sources; it's advancing a specific argument to say that such-and-such theme is present or primary when the sources conflict. I don't think what you're saying doesn't have a place in the article; clearly, there are sources that back it. I think inserting this particular theme into the lead, given the range of opinions on the primary theme, is inappropriate. We cannot fit all the primary themes advanced (should we mention infertility as a symbol? Kee as a symbol? Why only the Human Project?); with no consensus among sources or editors, we need to stick to what isn't in dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The thematic elements are supported by reliable sources, including the director himself, nor do the sources conflict. The characters consider the Human Project putative, but that doesn't detract from it's thematic role. Hope is the primary theme; this isn't in dispute nor has any specific dispute regarding this theme been raised by an editor; I only see outright dismissal with no actual reason given. —Viriditas | Talk 10:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources have a variety of views on the primary theme. I don't dispute that hope, as represented by the Human Project, is a theme; I dispute that it is the only or predominant theme, given the references. I think it's also misleading to talk about that theme in the middle of a simple description of the plot.

Hm. Maybe it might be a good idea to devote a paragraph to the movie's themes in the lead. I guess what I object to is more the abrupt change of subject, presenting a thematic interpretation as plain observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope is the primary theme, as stated by the director and most reviews. You have a good point when it comes to the expression of that hope, which pervades every aspect of the film. Your suggestion is an interesting one, but I would like to see you implement it. Kee's baby is considered the epitome of hope for the individual, and Theo's quest to help Kee reach the Human Project (representing the hope for humanity as a whole) enables him to regain hope in himself; witness his comments to Miriam in the abandoned school. Perhaps we could start by distilling this down to Cuaron's basic statement: "I wasn't interested in doing a sci-fi film, I was interested in doing a film about hope...I wanted to create a journey into the state of things today and have the audience make their own conclusion about where we are now and how we are going to survive." (Variety, 2006-12-06). —Viriditas | Talk 11:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope is the primary theme of the movie. The Human Project as the symbol of hope is not. (Have I finally made my distinction clear? I've been having trouble articulating it.) I'm not sure how the primary theme of the movie should be described, but I'm sure the old wording wasn't quite the right way to do it. I'll fiddle with some prose at some point, if nobody beats me to it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Some trivia: the fugees in the script are described as having a hopeless demeanor, and Theo is called a "veteran of hopelessness" who "gave up before the world did" (probably due to the death of his son). The primary hope for the future resides in the renewal of the sterile Wasteland, where the "Crimson King" and his son await in their towering Ark. Kee's baby is the catalyst for the renewal of hope in the world and the human imagination: Children are the future, and the Human Project is its greatest hope for realization, or "understanding" as Cuaron calls it. Jasper had faith in the reality of the Human Project all along ("I told you Amigo - the Human Project is real"), whereas Theo doubted it ("Human Project. Why do people believe this crap?") until, after a baptism by fire, Theo regained a sense of hope for the future, becoming a believer in Bexhill (Sirdjan asks Theo if the Human project is real, and Theo responds, "Better be"). This is in contrast to the dystopian turmoil of despair and hopelesseness raging in a childless world where government-sanctioned suicide is the norm. —Viriditas | Talk 11:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Chickenmonkey's proposal

See also: Talk:Children_of_Men/Temp § Yet_another_idea

At the risk of getting into this again, I think the two of you are just misunderstanding each other. I think Man In Black is agreeing that hope is the primary theme, but "The Human Project" isn't the only symbol of that hope (as in, without the baby, The Human Project means nothing. Without the mother, The Human Project means nothing, etc). Perhaps it would be better stated, "In hope of saving humanity, civil servant Theo Faron (Clive Owen) must help a pregnant West African refugee named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) escape Britain's oppressive new immigration laws and rendezvous with the Human Project", as it is not disputed that this is what they are attempting to do. It says the same thing without assigning the entire "hope of mankind" onto The Human Project. Then a section in Themes could be devoted to what The Human Project is thought to represent. That's the extent of my opinion. Chickenmonkey 06:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What Chickenmonkey said. That's a more-articulate way of saying what I meant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Chickenmonkey's modification sounds nice, but it isn't accurate nor sourced, whereas the original text was sound. Theo Faron never helped Kee in the hope of saving humanity. Theo did it for money, he was completely hopeless at the time (a "veteran of hopelessness" who "gave up before the world did"). On the other hand, we have three sources describing the project as the greatest hope for humanity. Other sources place the hope with Kee's child. As I wrote previously, both of those views should be represented. There's no conflict. —Viriditas | Talk 11:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just offering clarification to the misunderstanding. "In hope of..." was just an example I thought could be used. Having read the references, I feel the sentence would be better served as ending with "... rendezvous with the Human Project, a group of people who can possibly save mankind". I believe it says the same thing without sounding as much like interpretation as "best hope of mankind" does. Chickenmonkey 12:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Human Project Lives" - graffiti seen in the film, scrawled by Fishes, perhaps. The Project brought the greatest hope to humanity; the renewal of the Wasteland, a cure for infertility, a safe haven for a pregnant refugee, and a reason to believe in a possible future, a renewed faith for hopeless men and women alike. The greatest hope is placed on the knowledge of a cure for what ails mankind, and a fertile woman and her new baby hold the key. —Viriditas | Talk 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So... Sorry, I have no clue what you're trying to convey. Chickenmonkey 12:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Have you read the book, seen the film, and read reviews? —Viriditas | Talk 13:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read reviews and, from having these discussions, could probably recite the plot summary from memory hahaha. As for this sentence in question, how about this? "On a mission to ensure humanity's survival, civil servant Theo Faron (Clive Owen) must help a pregnant West African refugee named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) escape Britain's oppressive new immigration laws and rendezvous with a group of people who can possibly save mankind, The Human Project"? Chickenmonkey 13:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the former. Question: have you seen the film or read the book? It sounds like you've only read reviews. If that's true, it's ok, I just want to know where you are coming from. —Viriditas | Talk 13:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my first comment on this discussion page, "First, I haven't seen this film (although, I really want to and even moreso after reading so much about it here)". Since I said that, I've read many reviews and interviews. Still haven't seen it, though. Chickenmonkey 13:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for missing that the first time around. I recommend reading the book after seeing the film. I don't know which reviews you've read, but the best offline review I've read is Jonathan Romney's "Green and Pleasant Land" in the January-February issue of Film Comment and Ethan Alter's online review. If you can share a review you like, I can meet you on common ground. —Viriditas | Talk 13:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just read some of the online reviews referenced in this article (and maybe one that isn't). Chickenmonkey 14:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Give me links to a few you like, and we can talk about it. I have to logoff now, but I'll look for your links later. —Viriditas | Talk 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm lacking sleep. I don't understand what you wish to discuss. Most of what I read in the references here were the interviews. The reviews I read were from the list on RottenTomatoes. Chickenmonkey 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being clear. I wish to discuss your modification of the lead in reference to a source(s) we have both read. That way we can understand each other. I'll take a look at the ref you just added to production and start there. —Viriditas | Talk 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's what I thought you meant, but it's always best to make sure. I got "On a mission to ensure humanity's survival" from reference 13. I think that should be added because that sentence really sounds better with a lead-in. As for the phrase "people who can possibly save mankind", that came from reference 4. I think the modification would be just as informative as "best hope of mankind" (and more informative than just saying "The Human Project" without explaining what it is). Chickenmonkey 23:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I took a look at source 13 and 4, neither of which supports the statement. A headline from Evan Henerson misses the point; We don't cite headlines. Read both sources and you will see that they support the notion of the Human Project as the greatest hope for humanity and say nothing about Theo's mission to save humanity. Pay close attention to what both sources say about the Human Project. —Viriditas | Talk 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, 13 (that I can see) doesn't say anything about the Human Project. Furthermore, how can you say the headline "misses the point"? Whether you think it misses the point or not, it's there. If it's true that "we don't cite headlines" then fine, but I've never seen that said anywhere. Source 4 says of the Human Project "a group working towards the creation of a new society" and refers to the Human Project as "the people who can possibly save mankind". I am aware that source 5 says of the Human Project that it is "a refuge somewhere abroad created by scientists, artists and other people of good will as the best hope of mankind", but in the interest of ending the (for lack of a better word) argument that was going on I'm suggesting the sourcable statement that doesn't include the word "hope" be used. Having either "best hope of mankind" or "the people who can possibly save mankind" offers the same information to a reader of the article that, basically, they are trying to reach a group that can help them. Replacing "best hope of mankind" with "the people who can possibly save mankind" doesn't hurt the article. The fact that The Human Project either is or could be the "best hope of mankind" could be placed in the Themes section. I'm not saying that The Human Project isn't the "best hope of mankind" or that it can't be sourcably stated as so. I'm only saying that just saying "... rendezvous with the Human Project." and not giving a description of what this "Human Project" is in the lead isn't informative enough.

Simply, if the "human project" is going to be mentioned in the lead, then a simple explanation of what they are should be there, too. Seeing that "best hope of mankind" was disputed, I offered the solution of saying "the people who can possibly save mankind". That's all. Chickenmonkey 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, note 13 doesn't mention the Human Project at all. We don't source articles based on headlines. The statement, "On a mission to ensure humanity's survival", is even contradicted by other sources, such as Steve Vineberg of Christian Century, who writes, "Theo's heroic efforts to save Kee are linked to the death of his own son." So, Theo doesn't really give a damn about humanity. It's important to evaluate sources - reliability, quality, bias - these things must be taken into account. MLA style, for example, recommends focusing on three things: authority, accuracy, and currency. So we can conclude that source 13 is inaccurate due to its failure to mention the Human Project, and the use of an attention-getting headline that isn't supported by the body of the article. The three sources which support the Human Project as the greatest hope for humanity, meet the criteria for authority, accuracy, and currency:

• Guerrasio, Jason. "A New Humanity", Filmmaker Magazine, 2006-12-22:"Theo soon learns Kee is pregnant and is being brought to The Human Project, a group working towards the creation of a new society."
• Romney, Jonathan (Jan-Feb 2007). "Green and Pleasant Land". Film Comment: 32-35. writes: "Kee is to meet a boat from the Human Project, an organization dedicated to the preservation of the human race."
• "And deliver us from Bexhill", The Observer, 2006-09-24: "The rebels intend that she be taken to 'the Human Project', a refuge somewhere abroad created by scientists, artists and other people of good will as the best hope of mankind, though this legendary place may well be a chimera."

The graffiti seen in the film, "The Human Project Lives", is a symbol of this hope, and the Fishes are the force behind it. Luke, the new leader of the Fishes confirms this hope, albeit somewhat duplicitiously: "Now, we all agreed to deliver Kee to our brothers and sisters in the Human Project". Kee reinforces the hope: "I have my baby here. Then you get me to the Human Project." And, Miriam remains faithful in her hope: "The Tomorrow is a hospital ship disguised as a fishing boat. They'll take us to the Human Project... It's a sanctuary. That's where they'll take us, Kee..Tomorrow we'll be safe. You'll be on the boat. On the Tomorrow. You'll be with the Human Project. They'll take care of you. They'll take you far away from all of this.." So, we can see that the Human Project is the greatest hope for humanity. I agree that the lead should explain more. —Viriditas | Talk 05:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• "an organization dedicated to the preservation of the human race" is not "the greatest hope for humanity".
• "a group working towards the creation of a new society" is not "the greatest hope for humanity".
• "a refuge somewhere abroad created by scientists, artists and other people of good will as the best hope of mankind" is not "the greatest hope for humanity".

Do you have a source that supports the idea that the graffiti is a symbol of the hope?

If source 13 is inaccurate, then it shouldn't be a source at all then, right?

Why are you against simply saying "civil servant Theo Faron (Clive Owen) must help a pregnant West African refugee named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) escape Britain's oppressive new immigration laws and rendezvous with a group of people who can possibly save mankind, The Human Project"? I've explained why I thought it better to use this version, but you haven't explained why you feel it to be insufficient. Chickenmonkey 06:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"An organization dedicated to the preservation of the human race" is the greatest hope for humanity in the film, when faced with the destructive nature of a dystopian world. "A group working towards the creation of a new society" is the greatest hope in an old society facing death and disintegration. "A refuge somewhere abroad created by scientists, artists and other people of good will as the best hope of mankind" is the greatest hope for a sanctuary away from forced deportation and internment. I think there may be sources for the graffiti: I would have to look through a few dozen cites, but the words, "The Human Project Lives" are meant to instill hope in people; There's no other explanation. I think note 13 is used to source an interview with the director, not as a source for the headline. Take a look and let me know. I am not against anything; I am for accuracy. If we describe the Human Project as "a group of people who can possibly save mankind" we are ignoring the theme in the lead: hope is the vehicle for the road film, where the Human Project, a new society, is the cure and final destination for the hopeful, the greatest hope for fugees escaping internment and humaity facing extinction. The hope is made clear through Luke, Kee, Miriam, Jasper, and finally Theo. The people who didn't have hope faced the Quietus, suicide, or in Nigel's case, apathy and ignorance, which is where Theo starts out. The only hope in the film is for the Human Project, which can cure infertility, give the fugees refuge, and renew the desolate wasteland of the world. —Viriditas | Talk 06:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant, none of those statements directly say "the greatest hope for humanity". None of the sources directly say "greatest hope for humanity". That's what I meant. You say yourself "other sources place hope on Kee's child", therefore, placing all the hope entirely on the Human Project is misleading. I will now bow out of this, because a) it's going no where and b) I only came in to clarify the misunderstanding between you two. Do whatever you like. It is your article, after all. If the other guy continues to disagree with you, he can continue. Chickenmonkey 07:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Read closer. I've sourced the statement describing the Human Project as the "greatest hope for humanity". It's attributed to a reliable source, British film critic Philip French's article in the Sunday September 24, 2006 issue of The Observer.[14]. This does not conflict with hope for Kee's baby - they are complementary. I showed above that Kee's hope is to bring her baby to the Human Project; this hope begins with Julian, then Luke, then Miriam Jasper and finally Theo in Bexhill. Would you like some more sources? I should look for some. —Viriditas | Talk 08:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First, that source refers to the Human Project as "a refuge somewhere abroad created by scientists, artists and other people of good will as the best hope of mankind". That sentence itself could be interpretted different ways, but that's not the point. I don't need more sources. I believe you. I've read these different sources. I do not disagree that the Human Project is a symbol of hope. My suggestion is that the sentence be rephrased to take all the emphasis of hope off the Human Project because it isn't the only symbol of hope (as you've said). Stating that the Human Project is "the best hope of mankind" reads as misleading. Describing the Human Project as "people who can possibly save mankind" (which is sourcable) works to be purely informative instead of getting into what symbolizes this and that or whatever. Though, as I said, do it however you like. You're going to anyway. Chickenmonkey 08:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's somewhat unfair of you to say, isn't it? I'm not speculating about your motives, someone who hasn't seen the film nor read the book. No, I offered you highly reliable sources, none of which were used to mislead in any way. And, you referred me to a headline. Harumph. I showed you that the Human Project is considered the "best hope of mankind", and that's sourced to a reliable film critic. All I have to do is put it in quotes and cite it directly, and yet, I haven't, so why are you speculating about what I am going to do? The hope is also with Kee's baby as the beginning of a new future that the Human Project is helping to make possible. There's nothing misleading here. I gave you the dialogue that shows this to be the case, and I have more sources, that support Kee and the Project in complementary fashion: "...the goal is nothing less than the survival of the human race." (Washington Post, 2006-12-25) "Kee...is Earth's last best hope and must be smuggled out of London to safety." (Chicago Tribune, 2006-12-22) "Theo's flight across England to the sea, as the guardian of a young black immigrant....their goal is to escape England on a ship from the Human Project, a semi-mythical group of do-gooders with whom the Fishes are in conact." (National Review, 2007-01-29) "Cuaron said: 'At its core, it's a story about hope.'" (Daily Variety, 2001-10-05) "Hope is the first casualty among survivors, who include Theo...Julian begs him to help the Fishes...rebels dedicated to helping refugees...since he and Julian share the sorrow of having had a son who died, Theo agrees to slip a fugee named Kee...past the police to find safety with the Utopian Human Project." (Rolling Stone, 2007-01-25) "a mysterious group known as the Human Project waits to rescue (Kee)." (Commonweal, 2007-01-26) "an apathetic bureaucrat...finds himself shepherding the first child born in almost two decades to something caled the 'Human Project', a shadowy group determined to help the human race survive, almost in spite of itself." (Daily News, 2007-01-22) "Theo's only goal is to shepherd her into the hands of a benign outfit known as The Human Project, rumored (no one knows if the organization actually exists) to be working on a plan to perpetuate the species." (Philadelphia Daily News, 2007-01-05) "the ex...leader of something called the Fish underground...saddles (Theo) with this burden. Get this naïve young woman to safety, to something called The Human Project. Save the world." (Orlando Sentinel, 2007-01-05) "The revolutionaries hope to spirit Kee out of the country where she can be cared for by the Human Project, an almost mythical organization devoted to saving mankind." (Kansas City Star, 2007-01-05) "If there is to be any hope for humanity, Kee must survive..the goal seems to be getting Kee someplace, where her child can be born and thus give hope to all mankind." (Baltimore Sun, 2007-01-05l —Viriditas | Talk 09:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that your motives were bad, but simply that you're going to do it how you'd like, and I want you to. Replace it as "Human Project, the best hope of mankind". To be fair, I still don't understand why a headline can't be referenced, though it doesn't matter. How about this: "Civil servant Theo Faron (Clive Owen) is pulled into an attempt to safely guide the future of humanity, a pregnant West African refugee named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), away from Britain's oppressive new immigration laws and rendezvous with the Human Project, the best hope for mankind." "Theo then devotes himself to Kee's safety", "She's eight months pregnant, a fact received by Owen and every other witness as little short of miraculous." "and Claire-Hope Ashitey stands out as Kee, the future of humanity" I'm just trying to find a happy medium that hopefully everyone can be happy with and improve the article at the same time. Chickenmonkey 10:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't add "Human Project, the best hope of mankind" because that would be plagiarism, which is why it was paraphrased and sourced. "The greatest hope for humanity" is equivalent. Referencing a headline would also be plagiarism, and headlines are not used as source material; it's the body of the article that counts. Your suggestion for expanding the lead is interesting, but the "pulled into an attempt to safely guide the future of humanity" is a little clumsy, wordy, and slightly inaccurate. Kee may be carrying the future of humanity, but the baby isn't being guided. You don't want to give the reader a mouthful of verbiage. Each word should tell a story and stand on its own. Try condensing what you wrote, in your own words. —Viriditas | Talk 08:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand about the plagiarism reasoning, but the whole reason this started was because someone said "greatest hope for humanity" wasn't in the source. So maybe to end it, it would be best to just straight out quote the source and say "best hope of mankind" (in quotations). Peter Hartlaub describes Theo as being "pulled into an attempt" and also describes Kee as "the future of humanity in her third trimester". How about: "Civil servant Theo Faron (Clive Owen) is pulled into an attempt to transport a woman seen as humanity's future, a pregnant West African refugee named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), away from Britain's oppressive new immigration laws to rendezvous with the Human Project, mankind's best hope"? I added "a woman seen as" because just saying "humanity's future" didn't sound right. If it still needs further editing, could you rewrite it how you think it should be written?

Perhaps the entire paragraph could be written differently. "Set in the dystopian United Kingdom of 2027, two decades of global infertility have left the entire human race with less than a century before extinction, and the resulting societal collapse has led to terrorism, environmental destruction, and millions of refugees. Mankind's best hope lies with The Human Project, a group working towards the survival of the species. When a pregnant West African refugee named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) surfaces, civil servant Theo Faron (Clive Owen) is pulled into the attempt to transport humanity's newly found future away from Britain's oppressive immigration laws to an awaiting rendezvous with the Human Project". Something like that, maybe? Chickenmonkey 09:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Add what you've written in prose style (with cites) to a subsection below Jim's. —Viriditas | Talk 11:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Citing script

I would ask that you not cite the script to support your arguments. It has been shown by more than one editor to be rife with errors. You yourself have admitted that the script is not the movie, so anything derived from the script is not really a reliable source for what actually occurred in the film.

And not to throw your words back at you, Viriditas, but this all of the above supposition is quite simply OR, and unusable. None of this has been directly stated in a review. However, if they have, please cite each of your statements.Arcayne 12:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said to you previously, if you can't address the topic, don't comment. I was not arguing for inclusion of anything, but discussing trivia and raw ideas in the context of development. You seem to be confused about the script and discusion pages. Please tone down your combative behavior. Development discussions do not require citations. It's a form of brainstorming. In any case, the material you removed was fully sourced, so you don't seem to care if anything is sourced anyway, so your concern is somewhat ironic. —Viriditas | Talk 12:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As I contribute here as well, I am fairly confident that I am not in need of your permission to comment. Maybe you could "brainstorm" on your own sandbox, instead of taking up all this space arguing for something that has already been decided upon - something you have accused others of doing a great many times. It is not combative to point out where your own statments and behavior contradict your current bahavior and commentary. I am suggesting that you are a bit too close to this particular article, and both you and the article might benefit from you taking a bit of a break from it.Arcayne 12:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For the third time, please keep your off-topic suggestions to yourself. This talk page is for brainstorming and discussion. Furthermore, I suggest you take some time to read and familiarize yourself with WP:TALK. Do not alter comments made by other editors without their permission. Now, while you are busy learning about Wikipedia, I will continue discussing the topic and contributing to the article. Have fun. —Viriditas | Talk 12:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Production section

It seems to me that it is a bit bloated. Good information there, but still, where is the line?Arcayne 10:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The line is drawn at size. We then split the section to a new page and add content, summary style. The production section is still growing; there is a lot missing. —Viriditas | Talk 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but the plot is only 819 words long, and both the themes and production sections are over a 1000 words now. There should be a way to condense that. Since that seems to be your pet, why not work with that?Arcayne 10:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but the discussion has been ongoing for the last ten days in the section, "40 kilobyte warning". Please feel free to discuss it there. —Viriditas | Talk 10:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that seem to be an excellent reasoning for resolving the issue? I mean, 10 days is a long time for you to be arguing and angry, Viriditas. Maybe you should take a break for a bit, and recharge your batteries.Arcayne 12:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but if you can't address the topic, please don't comment. I don't see any arguing or anger in the "40 kilobyte section" from anybody. If you are having difficulty reading, you could always try the Simple English wiki. —Viriditas | Talk 12:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make an effort to be more Civil. Calling contributors meat puppets and sock-puppets is uncivil.Arcayne 13:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the question of the Production section content itself, it is bloated and seems mostly off-topic. This section should focus on the specific evolution of the proposed project to screen, but much of the content appears to address the story's themes and some verges on literary criticism. I'm not suggesting that material be moved to the Themes section (that's too long as it is — see below), but some serious editing should be done.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  05:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. The process for working with long sections is outlined in WP:SIZE and related pages linked to it. We're hovering around 40 kilobytes, so there's no need to do anything just yet except add sub-sections. See the related discussion above, in the section entitled "40 kilobyte warning". Also, we have a temp page setup at Talk:Children of Men/Temp - could you move your revision to the theme section on that page? Could you also point out the parts you consider off-topic? There is some slight crossover between production and themes due to Cuaron's stylistic approach. As I see it, the production and theme sections will double in size, with sub-sections separating sub-topics. Then, we can split, summary style from the main articles. If you look closely at the production and theme sections, you can see that the content is already separated by sub-topics, and is ready for headers. For example, production has adaptation, preparation and influences, single shot sequences (the most notable sub-topic requiring expansion), and VFX, as well as others. Themes has hope and immigration as parallel primary topics, as well as contemporary references to popular culture (Iraq, etc.) and religion. The heroic journey theme is also dominant, and I'm presently working on expanding it (see the theme tasks on the temp page waiting to be added). It may be possible to move some content from one section to the other, or to keep it separate. Basically, we are at a point where sub-topics can be grouped into sub-section headers, and the main articles can be split. Then, a summary style similar to your proposed revision can be placed into the main page. I don't see the article as "bloated", but in need of headings and splitting. If you could help preserve the content, but group it into sub-topics, that would help us see what should stay and what should go. With you and A Man in Black working on this article, we should be at FA status in a month or two. —Viriditas | Talk 08:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Themes section in need of revision

The Themes section appears to suffer from bloat. The content is good, but it appears incremental edits have resulted in poor organization, redundant statements and paragraphs, and unnecessary length. Consequently, I took the material, trimmed it a bit and revised to put the ideas in a cohesive format. Also, a small amount of additional material has been added to help tie the main points together.

Please take a few minutes to review a proposed revision for this section, and then leave comments and suggestions below.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above. —Viriditas | Talk 08:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Claire-Hope Ashitey

I'm suprised there isn't an article on her yet on Wikipedia. Honestly, I'd think she'd garnered a little publicity (she has worked on other movies, after searching through Yahoo and IMDB) from working on CoM. Also, why is she not listed in the lead paragraph? The "main" bad guy is listed, yet to me he has a less substantial role than Kee. I'm not saying he's not important, but that he's seemingly less important than Kee/Claire-Hope. Is the reason she wasn't included in the lead paragraph(s) because she didn't have a Wikipedia article? Disinclination 19:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the reason, as I didn't write it. Can you just go ahead and make your changes? If anyone objects, we'll point them here. —Viriditas | Talk 20:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. For those who want to discuss it, they can. I've just noticed several changes to the "main" cast sentence in the lead paragraph, and I've always wondered why she was never included. Disinclination 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Grenade/RPG round/etc

Discuss here so everyone can come to a sensible consensus (references are the best, and probably even a must, to back up your argument). A question, though: Didn't the "explosive" hit the hospital, and not a tank? Disinclination 19:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire for accuracy and detail, but why not just leave the phrase at, "However, the tacit truce is broken by a close-by explosion and the fight resumes as Theo, Kee, and the baby rejoin Marichka and make their way to a small boat."? Whether it is a grenade, RPG, or backed-up toilet that hit a tank or a building has no impact on story development as long as it's understood that the battle is resuming. (btw, I watched a video of that segment last night and it hits a building and there's no sure way to tell whether it was a rpg or tank round, just that it appears to be a projectile.) lol

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the "however" and "close-by" and you have my support. —Viriditas | Talk 08:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

But doesnt it come from a window of the building, and doesnt it have a white vapor trail? -Zippeh

The film isn't really all that clear, but here's what the script says,

BAM! BAM! BAM! Patric shoots from the 3rd floor window, shattering the silence. From other windows, Francesco,Tomaz, Somi fire. Two soldiers behind Theo are hit. Theo covers Kee as soldiers open fire on the apartment building. A new battle flares.

I'll look through some reliable secondary sources to see if we can support your claim. I suggest you look as well. For now, we should just leave it until we can source it otherwise. Frankly, the plot section can still be trimmed down. —Viriditas | Talk 22:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Even a busted clock is right twice a day - the script calls it accurately. The fire came from the window as described, although no soldiers anywhere near Kee and Theo are hit. The sound of a rocket fired and exploding doesn't correspond with any smoke from the tanks or grund troops. I have no idea where you would find sources that specifically mark the shot as an rpg, but as there was an explosion, and not simply the sound of bullet ricochet, maybe it would be better to avoid the controverys and simply say battle begins as Kee and the baby leave the area.Arcayne 23:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Theo and the gang fled because of the explosion, and the battle continuing. Disinclination 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. Remember, they got sidetracked. Marichka was originally going to take them to the boat when the Fishes captured Kee and intended to execute Theo and the rest. So, Theo simply rescued Kee, and resumed the journey, while Marichka waited for them. —Viriditas | Talk 23:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

...? I know they got sidetracked. I'm just saying that after Theo and Kee left the building, and all the soldiers/etc are looking on in awe, something explodes in or around the hospital, and the battle resumes, forcing Theo and Kee to flee. Disinclination 00:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but battle or not, they were already in the process of fleeing. I don't think the explosion changed anything, other than distracting the army and the Fishes away from them, allowing them to escape undetected. —Viriditas | Talk 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that part. I just thought that Arcayne meant the battle resumes cause they leave. I meant that they leave -because- of the battle resuming. Or is that just mincing words? :S Disinclination 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's my fault; I should have quoted the rest of the script.

A new battle flares. Theo and Kee walk on, ignored by the soldiers who race forward, taking up new positions. BOOM! The tank blasts a massive hole in the third floor. CORNER - WHARF & 3RD Leaving the battle behind, Kee and Theo hurry down the street. Marichka emerges from a blown-out doorway, holding Santo, greeting them with a crooked smile.

—Viriditas | Talk 04:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough with quoting the script already; its not an accurate depiction of events as they actually unfolded in the film. Your previous quotation from it as to how soldiers next to Theo and Kee are hit by gunfire is incorrect, and the script is rife with these bit errors. When you cite a bad source, the resulting citation is equally bad. No, Disinclination, you are not mincing words, although I am guessing that the point is fairly moot. Whether the fight resumes because they leave or after they leave is inconsequential. My earlier comment was to address the whole 'who resumed the fight and with what sort of weapon' issue. The film uses the baby as a sort of magic spell there - all strife simply stopped immediately while the baby passed by, and resumed after the baby left. Arcayne 10:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The official screenplay released by the studio as the final shooting script is not "inaccurate", does not contain "errors", nor is it considered a "bad source" by anyone. It's the blueprint for the film which goes through its own development process along the way, involving editing and the like. It's a great way of seeing the raw scenes in a primary source, and the tiny irrelevant details that either didn't make it into the film or were cut, do not change the structure or the outcome of the plot. Looking at the book, the script, and the film together. provides insight into what the author and screenwriters intended. It's also more accurate to rely on the script to describe a synopsis rather than editors who insist on describing irrelevant details that don't appear in either the script or the film. There are several secondary sources that describe the scene, but none that depict the baby as a "sort of magic spell". —Viriditas | Talk 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the specificity of explosion type being significant to the plot (especially since it's a synopsis)?

"When the combatants hear the baby's cry, both soldiers and rebels cease fighting, awed. Theo, Kee, and the baby leave the building, unmolested by the stunned combatants. Moments later an explosion heralds resumption of battle and Theo, Kee, and the baby rush to rejoin Marichka and make their way to a small boat."

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  10:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The type of explosion is not important to the plot in any way. —Viriditas | Talk 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New lead

Jim has developed a new lead section on the temp page. I would like him to add it to the main article, but the last time we added an unsourced summary in the lead, some editors took advantage and began adding original research. —Viriditas | Talk 11:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Well, that certainly wasn't OR. Arcayne 12:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember...

A similar film in the 80s with the last baby in the world in some sort of test tube-ish artificial womb. When the baby floated to the top it meant it was dying... very similar and such. Does anyone remember what this movie was called? I think since they are so similar it should be mentioned in both articles as the themes are very alike (one unborn child is the hope of all mankind in a dystopian future where everyone is infertile). --Ihmhi 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you find a good, reliable source making that observation, we can't add it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

References to the past and future events or Trivia

Throughout a significant part of the film we can see Clive Owen wearing a worn off or washed-out 'London 2012' Olympics jumper. Only 'DON' letters are still clearly visible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.63.61 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm going from memory here, but I think I have a couple of reliable sources for this trivia if anyone thinks it has a place in the body of the article. —Viriditas | Talk 23:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV argument

Care to explain what the article seems to be an endorsement of? I really don't see how it is not neutral. Unless, of course, you are referring to the lack of criticism against the movie. However, a half sentence in an edit summary doesn't really explain much. Disinclination 06:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree: if an editor places a tag such as {{npov}} on an article that is GA, then something more than a brief comment in the edit summary needs to be provided. In fact, the NPOV tag actually says, "Please see the discussion on the talk page," but no such discussion was initiated by the tagger.

I'm removing the tag, but leaving this section here to invite others to discuss whether the article has an objectivity issue. I can see how the editor who placed the tag might raise the question since the article is indeed generally positive about the film, but so is the consensus of reviewers. But the issue should have been raised on the Discussion page before the tag was placed. I've invited C1k3 to participate since a fresh set of eyes is always good (and, admittedly, most of the article's contributors have been film enthusiasts). Comments are welcome.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  11:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Characters section?

I've read about some interest in a Cast section, but I'd be really interested in reading about each of the (10 maybe?) characters featured in this film. Perhaps a paragraph summarizing their actual role in the plot and then some room for analysis. The characters I'd be most interested in reading other people's opinions about would be characters like Patric (sic) (one of the Fishes, the one with the blonde dreads that keeps getting hit with the car door), Syd, and some in-depth on Marichka. Also it would be interesting to see how some of the more prominent characters change in terms of attitude etc. Would anyone else be interested? Easymac08 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"The characters I'd be most interested in reading other people's opinions about..." The problem with that, Easymac08, is that Wikipedia is not where you should be looking if you're interested in discussing opinions, no matter the subject. If you want to share and discuss ideas about character motivations and attitudes, perhaps you should seek out a forum (such as where it would be more suitable to discuss such subjects. We're only interested in what is citable and reliable, not what can be theorized (unless it's stated by someone in authority, such as the director or actor). María: (habla conmigo) 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Characters/Cast

Why do both exist? I'd say, remove the Characters section and expand the Cast section. Chickenmonkey 23:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Audience vote

I don't know if this is particularly relevant, but it's probably worth mentioning in the trivia section. Apparently it just won a vote by Virgin Media (British cable TV supplier) customers for the movie that they most wanted to see in the blockbuster category of Virgin's TV on demand.perfectblue 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And next week, it will be Spongebob or Pathfinder or any one of a numbe of different films. And we don't need trivia sections because they are - to coin a friend of mine - trivial, they don't belong in most articles, except as possible construction parts for prose. I used to be a believer in trivia sections. I know now that was being lazy. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Post-apocalyptic" or just "apocalyptic"?

The first sentence of the current version identifies the movie as a "post-apocalyptic science fiction film." It seems to me that it's really not yet post-apocalyptic in that there is still some semblance of order in society, although that is clearly only in certain metropolitan areas and it is rapidly disappearing. "Post-apocalyptic" would apply better to Mad Max 2, A Boy and His Dog, and other films that take place after civil society has been completely destroyed. So I recommend changing the description to just "apocalyptic." --MrWhipple 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree except that there is evidence of some countries being decimated by nuclear weapons; if you look at the newspapers when the Fishes kidnap Theo you see that Kazakhstan & some other countries were wiped out. (Personally, I think the fallout caused the sterility epidemic...). But, the point you bring up about Britain maintaining "order" (which it really hasn't, look at all the chaos...) is interesting. Tommyt 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's better described as 'apocalyptic'; the fundamental problem in the film's society is not nuclear fallout but the infertility and the consequent belief that mankind is doomed. The characters are in the apocalypse, not after it.Cop 633 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that apocalyptic is a better word choice, as the post- part happens off camera, in other countries. England is just dancing with the Reaper, and not quite done in yet. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Eastern Europe?

What on earth does this article have to do with Eastern Europe? -Joshuapaquin 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because the look of the film is dark and gloomy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordinho (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Tag removed. —Viriditas | Talk 10:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As the adder of the tag, it was because, somehow, the article fell into a category which eventually placed it in the <noincludeCategory:Hungary. My guess is the fact that it's a Serbo-Croatian language film. No real objections to seeing it removed. But, potentially, if the very new project ever becomes very active, it is possible someone else might add the tag again. John Carter 20:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor plot quibbles

The character 'Patric' is mentioned being killed, but he was never introduced earlier. This is a little confusing. As I recall he was the Fish that staged the ambush that killed Julian.

Also, are you absolutely sure it was the Fishes that found Jasper's hide out and killed him? I've only seen the movie once, but I could have sworn that was the police. They were also hunting Theo, Miriam & Kee at the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.243.125.61 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Thats what I thought too, but they didn't look as organized as a trained police squad should/might be. Disinclination 19:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the Fishes. It's Chiwetel Ejiofor's character who shoots Jasper. Cop 633 15:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cop is correct. It's dah fishes. And here you thought they were just swimming around a tank, looking peaceful. Nope, they're out shooting John Lennon lookalikes. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this film considered Science Fiction?

It's been called "Blade Runner for the 20th century" by some glory-seeking critic, but it's nothing like Blade Runner. Blade Runner is rife with evidence of technological development whereas this film is not. Only minor advances are ever seen. The only thing it has in common with Blade Runner is the "dystopian" description. Children of Men could take place three months from the present and no one would know the difference. A jump twenty years in the future does not qualify a movie as Science Fiction. The characters never directly deal with anything that could not occur in present time. In their world I'm sure it'd seem like a Sci-Fi movie but the little snippet we get of that world doesn't really reveal anything out of the ordinary. The "humans not being able to have babies" plot is really only an interesting way to give the characters a dilemma and is also a way to explore ideas about immigration and human behavior. Jordinho 06:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Definitions of science fiction are myriad and varied. I would say that this film qualifies on many levels as soft sci-fi. Jcomp489

Agree with Jcomp here. Your definition of scifi is as immaterial as mine or a dozen other folks, and twice as uncitable as a secondary, reliable source. The MPAA and the makers call it sci-fi. Ergo, it is. As well, I would like to point out that perhaps you might wish to read the article a bit more closely - the director himself says that this movie is the anti-Blade Runner. Tech is kept to a minimum, and the scifi element is the elimination of human fertility. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Academy Award Mention

First of all, how is it promoting a bias toward the Academy Awards, as Erik mentioned? Secondly, I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in the article description, as it is noteworthy. No, it may not have won, but being nominated is noteworthy enough. I simply gave reference to other articles that mentioned a similar stance, regardless of whether or not they were winnters or only nominees. Minority Report was only nominated.

In musical pages, gold, platinum and diamond sales are mentioned in article descriptions. Why should it not be the same here?

Enfestid 06:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Freakishly, I agree with Viriditas here. The article has 17 sections, and awards is but one of them. The Lead is supposed to be an overview of the article. Mentioning the fact that it was only nominated for an American Academy award isn't really a sbstantial part of that overview. You might instead suggest that the Lead include the fact that it is an award winning film, and leave it at that. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Most important are the style guidelines set forth by Wikipedia:WikiProject Films which state

The lead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film. The very first paragraph should cover the basics, such as the film's release year, alternate titles, genre(s), setting, country (if not the US), stars, and director (and possibly writer in some cases), as well as one or two of the most notable, verifiable facts about the film, such as "At the time of its release, it was the most expensive film ever made". The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, and whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced.

Please note that it is the second paragraph that gets information pertaining to the films impact (e.g. any awards that it garners). Winning an Academy Award, no matter how unbiased or biased you think it is to mention, still doesn't belong in the lead sentence, let alone that first paragraph anyway, as it has nothing to do with "the basics", because it's something comes after the fact.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not oppose mentioning what awards a film has won or has been nominated for. However, there is no credible reason why its status with the Academy Awards have to be mentioned in the very first sentence, even if it's been won. It's an unnecessary bias toward the Oscars, especially if other awards (such as BAFTA) are more notable outside the United States. Since this is particularly a British production, this point is even more emphasized. Like Bignole indicated, the first sentences should cover the basics, and the film's impact, in terms of the various awards it may have received, can be mentioned toward the end of the lead paragraphs. In addition, it should be noted that film articles of FA status do not have any kind of Academy Award recognition in the initial sentence. Also, if a film has won a great number of awards, it may be better to use a blanket statement as not to single out a specific award for preference. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One could also add that it wasn't nominated for the most important Academy Awards (at least, important to the general public). If it had won Best Picture or Best Actor, I might support mentioning it in the first sentence, but being nominated for Best Editing, Screenplay and Cinematography isn't so spectacular.Cop 633 15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, judging from all the responses, the best compromise is to take the mention out of the lead paragraph, and mention both the BAFTA and Academy Awards. If there are any qualms with this compromise, just say so. Enfestid 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning both the AA and BAFTA as it is now works well. Also, Editing, Screenplay and Cinematography are HUGE awards. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving?

As a lot of these conversations are pretty old or conclusive, it might be nifty to do some archiving at some point, Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then...if no one has a problem, I will archive the discussion page (excepting open conversations) on Wednesday. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyberpunk

Is the genre of this film also in the cyberpunk tradition? Pablosecca 12:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I say not, since there is little focus on technology to move the story along, which is a key component of cyberpunk. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  13:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of edits

I recently did some tweaking in the article:

• here I addressed a poorly written prior version of someone pointing out why immigrants were even coming to England.
• here I substituted the proper word observance in place of concordance, which was used incorrectly. As well, there is a similarity to Cuaron's prior qork. CoM is not a sequel or prequel to Y tu mama Tambien. Different stories, different characters, different time periods and genres. Similar in theme and "road movie" style. As well, the Christmas release of the film was in the US; it had been released in the UK months prior.
• This edit refocused the idea that the Human Project is the apparent last hope of mankind. As we don't know that much about the Project, we have no idea as to whether they are beneficial or not, are going to be successful or not, or are as in the dark about human infertility as everyone else. Thus, using apparent is NPOV.

Thought I would clarify my edits, so as to prevent some from simply reverting. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I would like to take this opportunity to respond and explain why I reverted your edits. The edit history tells a different story than the one you portray above. I originally composed and added the text about immigrants "clamoring for sanctuary" to the lead at 10:21, 30 April 200. After reviewing my edit, and seeing that the vestigial citation didn't support the new content, and at the same time realizing the new addition was redundant since a reference to the refugee crisis already appeared in the same sentence, I quickly removed what I wrote [15]. Without asking why I wrote this material and deleted it, you claimed it as your own and added a revised version back in several times (a partial revert) at 21:17, 30 April 2007 with spelling and grammar errors. One of your reverts to this poor writing contained the edit summary, "reinstate better writing" [16]. Here is what you wrote:

seekinng the the relative santuary of England [17]

I really don't think that could be considered "better writing".

Ironically, you claim above to have "addressed a poorly written prior version of someone pointing out why immigrants were even coming to England", while adding new spelling errors and introducing an unsourced redundancy. As I explained, the sentence already describes the refugee crisis in the UK, which directly entails immigrants coming to England for sanctuary. There's no need to explain it in the lead.

Regarding your replacement of "observing a concordance" with "noting the relationship" [18], it was used correctly to mean "harmonious consistency". The current version of the New Oxford American Dictionary (p.353) defines the word as "of one mind", and provides a form of usage in terms of "consistency". One example follows: "The concordance between the team's research results." Another (non-OAD) definition of concordance that is highly appropriate to the art of film is that of "a harmonious state of things in general and of their properties (as of colors and sounds); congruity of parts with one another and with the whole". So you can see that this usage is pertinent and more informative than a simple "relationship" which merely implies a "connectedness".

I'm not entirely following your reasoning for adding the unnecessary adjective "apparent" to the lead [19], as the text is sticking to the sources cited. Perhaps you mean to say that the Human Project is putative, which I would agree with in principle. The sources are clear about the project, and the director has stated that the project is a metaphor for human understanding. You seem to be trying to interject your OR pet theory of the "evil unsmiling sailors" back into the article again. Please try to let it go and just go with the sources.

Your latest edits consist of a sneaky combination of three small, unmarked, partial, complex and large unmarked reverts, in whole or in part, in what might be described as gaming the system, which continued to introduce poor writing into the article, as if you weren't reading what you were editing. This kind of blind editing behavior has been pointed out to you in the past (recall the time when you continued to revert the addition of the new cast section by another editor):

1. Revert of "apparent" in revision as of 21:06, 30 April 2007 to "apparent" in revision as of 03:51, 30 April 2007
2. Revert of "sanctuary" in revision 21:17, 30 April 2007 to "sanctuary" in revision as of 12:56, 30 April 2007
3. Revert of "apparent...seekinng (sic) the the (sic) relative santuary (sic) of England...noting the relationship...US...similar in execution...flatulate" in revision as of 00:38, 1 May 2007 to "apparent...seekinng (sic) the the (sic) relative santuary (sic) of England...noting the relationship...US...similar in execution...pass gas" in revision as of 21:18, 30 April 2007

Lastly, the current version of the page as of your last edit at 04:33, 1 May 2007 is completely garbled and SNAFU. The production section is missing, several sections are overlapped into others, and the references section is unreadable. I am reverting to the last good version of the article for this reason and the reasons above. —Viriditas | Talk 06:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting point of view regarding my edits. Perhaps you might wish to take a bit more time to revisit the Assumption of Good Faith, Viriditas. Calling my edits sneaky, "telling a different story", and "pet theories" hearken back to the trollish behavior we have seen from you in the past. I certainly hope this isn't a return to that OWNish attitude, Viriditas. You seem to have grown up somewhat over the intervening months; it would be rather disappointing for you to start backsliding now.
It would appear to a reasonable person that the best method of tackling my typos would be to simply fix them instead of reverting them back to a prior version. However, you might be too preoccupied with other matters to concern yourself with simple spelling corrections. Perhaps I do need to pay a bit closer attention to my spelling; however ,my grammar is in no immediate need of correction by anyone, much less yourself. I thank you for your "suggestion" as to renewing my vigilance in regards to it. That small point addressed, let's move on to your talking points.
The first part of your revert addresses the immigrants "seeking the relative sanctuary of England". You claim that the sentence "already describes the refugee crisis in the UK, which directly entails immigrants coming to England for sanctuary...there's no need to explain it in the lead." Odd, I seem to have missed that in the pertinent lead sentence:

With this realization, societal collapse, terrorism, and environmental destruction lead to a refugee crisis with the last functioning government persecuting illegal immigrants.

I won't ask the semantical question of where (in the version you seem to favor) this addresses immigrants seeking the relative sanctuary in England, because it quite simply doesn't. My version uses the description of societal collapse (and the reference within the article to Kee's illegal status) to address why any immigrants would even consider coming to England, and that the safety they seek is relative only in terms of what is happening outside the borders. However, in a left-handed way, you are correct: the article doesn't really address this issue. Perhaps it should, but untilk it does so, it doesn't belong in the lead.
Secondly, your use of "concordance" seems to be an OR assumption of universal agreement, which it is not - at least, not in the great many citations we have on hand. Two editors noted the proximity of the film's US release (it had been released elsewhere amonth or so earlier - yet another bit that you reverted) during Christmas to the preceived message of the film. This doesn't strike me as concordance. I chose to address what was actually provable, which was a notation of the significance, and not suggesting an overwhelming notation of this marketing-inspired release date. Therefore, I will be changing those bits back, as it more accurately reflects the source materials. As well, the use of "apparent" was rather well explained above. In none of the small grouping of citations listed in the lead (do all FA articles have citations in the lead, or have them bunched like that? I think rather not) does it state categorically that the Human Project is the definitive last hope for humanity. While I agree that it does, it is naught but a "pet theory" to say so without reliable sourcing to back it up. While most of the sources seem to agree that Kee is in fact the last hope for mankind, one source (#7) addresses and somewhat debunks the

"The rebels intend that she be taken to 'the Human Project', a refuge somewhere abroad created by scientists, artists and other people of good will as the best hope of mankind, though this legendary place may well be a chimera."

Now, while the source states what you wish is the case, the reviewer deflates this argument within the same sentences, calling it a chimera. Now, to be fair, I don't usually use the Oxford American Disctionary, preferring the original and more arguably accurate source, the Oxford English Dictionary:

chimera /kimeer/ (also chimaera) • noun 1 Greek Mythology a fire-breathing female monster with a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and a serpent’s tail. 2 something hoped for but illusory or impossible to achieve. 3 Biology an organism containing a mixture of genetically different tissues. (Italics mine)

It might be OR to suggest this, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't think the reviewer was referring to a lion-headed goat or a genetically mixed critter, fire-breathing or otherwise.
As none of the sources (or even the actual Hope sub-section of Themes) specifically address the Human Project in the way that your version seems to describe, it would seem more advisable to either reinstate the use of 'apparent' (as the Human Project is described more in terms of its metaphor for human understanding than specifically as a "last hope") or more approapriately attribute Kee as the last hope for humanity, as numerous sources do in fact cite her as such in a more practical and less metaphorical way. That too, I will be reinstating..
Moving on, you address my use of quotation marks around the everyman definition of Theo as "completely garbled" and a "snafu". Viriditas, if you are going to use all the big words and terms, it might be useful for you to take the time read up so as to inderstand their proper definitions and usage. Neither of those words apply to the application of quotation marks to a term cointed by a reviewer in the cited source.
Lastly, I look at the remainder of the revert that you didn't include in your arguments. You might recall that you suggested that the article needed editing to remove bloat. The following was removed or reworded to accomplish just that:

• "Theo tracks the Fishes to a besieged apartment building where many of them are taken down in gunfire including Patric, where Theo finds Kee and the baby with Luke."

"replaced with my edit: Theo tracks the Fishes to a besieged apartment building where Theo finds Kee and the baby with Luke." (rm unnecessary text)

• "Theo frees them, but Luke shoots at Theo, wounding him, just before an explosion obliterates the room and kills Luke."

replaced with my edit: "Theo frees them, but Luke shoots at Theo, wounding him, just before an explosion obliterates the room and Luke." (rm unnecessary text)

• "When the combatants hear the baby's cry, both soldiers and rebels cease fighting, awed."

replaced withmy edit: "When the combatants hear the baby crying, all fighting immediately ceases and the comabatants look on in awe." (reword for effect before and after sentence)

• "Theo, Kee, and the baby leave the building, unmolested by the stunned combatants. The tacit truce is broken by another explosion and the fight resumes as Theo, Kee, and the baby rejoin Marichka and make their way to a small boat."

replaced with: "Theo, Kee, and the baby quickly leave the building, and the fighting soon resumes as the three rejoin Marichka and make their way to a small boat." (reword for both brevity and effect before and after sentence)

• "Theo admits that he was shot during their escape, but says he's alright, just as he gives advice to Kee about comforting her baby."

replaced with: "Theo admits that he was shot during their escape, but says he's all right, just as he gives advice to Kee about comforting her baby." (rm spelling error)

• "The role of Jasper was a change for Caine as it was the first time he ever portrayed a character who would flatulate or smoke cannabis."

replaced with: "The role of Jasper was a change for Caine as it was the first time he ever portrayed a character who would pass gas or smoke cannabis" (tweaking for better word choice, as the actual source says "fart").

As I look over the revert, you seemed to specifically address all of my recent edits, whether they warranted discussion or not. This would appear to be a bad faith revert on your part, especially in light of the edits you reverted but somehow failed to mention. I will ask that you be more careful in the future. We wouldn't ant anyone thinking youw had article ownership issues, now would we?
I have taken the time to clearly explain why I made the edits, and have concurred with you on how one edit was unnecessary. I have also effectively defended the remainder of those edits, and will be reinstating them immediately. Of course, you are welcome to bring any other concerns you have here (as you appear to have problems with folk expressing dissent on your Talk page). Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You were warned about the WP:3RR above, yet you chose to ignore the policy, blatantly violating it with your latest revert:

4. Revert of "apparent...noting the relationship ...immediately ceases and the comabatants look on in awe...pass gas" in revision 14:00, 1 May 2007 to "apparent...noting the relationship...immediately ceases and the comabatants look on in awe...pass gas" in revision as of 06:27, 1 May 2007

This seems to be another one of your disruptive edit wars you have chosen to wage on this article, as before. The archives and page history show that you have contributed very little content (and no research) to this article in the last three months. Instead, the talk page and edit history shows that you have repeatedly attempted to force your personal beliefs and pet theories into this article through edit warring and sneaky reverts, first by insisting that Theo was alive at the end (contrary to the director), then demanding that trivia sections be included (contrary to policy), then insisting that because you recognize a type of gun in the film, you should be allowed to insert your expert opinion into the article (sans sources), inferring that discussion of allusions to the Earth Goddess are crazy (Cuaron is on record at the Scriptor awards stating he researched Gaia for the film, and reviewers have described Kee as an Earth Goddess), demanding that the "sound of children laughing" in the credits is a major plot point (no reliable sources), insisting that because you personally see "evil unsmiling sailors" on the bow of the Tomorrow ship the article should represent your expert opinion in the plot (original research), and demanding that the "shanti" be included as a plot point (it's a theme). Now, you want to weaken the article /again/, this time insisting on inserting poor writing, unnecessary and misplaced adjectives (against all good writing guides such as The Elements of Style) that modify the wrong part of the sentence (It's the Human Project that is putative, not the hope). As far as I can tell, any discussion with you doesn't go anywhere, as you fail to listen time and time again, and more importantly, understand what other editors are saying. I think the talk pages show just how much time you've wasted trolling this article and other editors in the last three months. Throughout this time, you've repeatedly made bizarre accusations and strange threats on my talk page, which is why I have asked you multiple times to use this page instead. I explained to you the difference between "apparent" and "putative", but you don't get it. I explained to you why the use of "concordance" is more informative as it conveys a metaphorical "harmonic consistency" (an agreement) that the word "relationship" does not imply. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. My only interest is in continuing to research (I have 50 citations and will be adding more) and improve the article, which I believe I have done. I don't see how you have improved the article in the three (or more) months that you have been here. You promised some time ago to do some research, but you never did. —Viriditas | Talk 20:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, let's dispense with some of your notions. The events you describe as having happened months ago were just that, events happening months ago. And unfortunately, your apparent recall of these supposed events is clearly exaggerated and flawed. I am not going to address your behavior during that time, save to say that it was so poor that several experienced editors chose to flee the article rather than work with your (and I will be kind here) difficult demeanor. I chose to come back to the article to improve it. You have added many references - one need only see the multiple citations in the Lead to know the extensive amount of work you have done. I am not sure whether you are expecting appause or awe from the rest of us for your contributions. Certainly, you are aware that you don't actually have any greater stake in the article than anyone else, right? If you are looking for an attaboy for doing work, um, good job.

That aside, I have never made any threats - bizarre or otherwise - on your Talk page. If I choose to contact you regarding an edit that doesn't belong in the Discussion page for an aticle, I will do so: it is the initial step to dispute resolution. Whatever my predictions as to the outcome of that attempt, I can always say I have at least made the attempt. That I did caution you on starting up another series of edit wars, as it might cause the article to lose its GA rating was just that - a caution. I've seen it happen elsewhere, and didn't want to see it happen here. As well, i specifically cautioned you to avoid the alienating, uncivil behavior that you seem to still have a problem suppressing. I am not wont to trade barbs with you, as there are far more effective routes to pursue when dealing with that. If you consider my requests for you to avoid edit-warring and uncivil posts to be threats, then it would appear you might need to revisit those sections on the subjects.

I have read your posts, Viriditas. I understood them. I simply disagreed as to both their relevance and value as it applies to the article. Of course that isn't a consistent opinion, as I agreed with you that some of my edits were a bit hasty, such as the"relative sanctuary" and "companion piece" bits. I understood the definitions of both 'putative' and 'concordance' before you assumed I didn't know them or didn't "get it". I did "get it," however I simply disagreed with their application in the article, and I twice explained my reasoning against using them in favor of something better. You do understand that people can honestly and intelligently disagree with your point of view without being cretins, don't you? And I do not like having to repeat myself either, especially to someone who is going to present distractive arguments instead of addressing the matters at hand. Therefore, I urge you to either address the specific points I made in my earlier response as to my edit changes.

I do not agree with the replacement of 'apparent' with 'putative', as they mean separate things: apparent means "initially obvious", whereas putative refers to "something positive or certain". As nothing certain is known about the Human project throughout the film, and none of the references cited address it as a certainty - indeed, Cuaron clearly states that he leaves the film somewhat open-ended, allowing the audience to decide whther the ending is good or bad. Therefore, the use of the word putative is incorrect. The Human Project and hope are not synonymous, despite what you think (and no, clinging to one statement from Cuaron doesn't assist you here, when plenty of other reviewers address Kee or Theo's endeavors to keep her safe as the sources of hope in the piece), and that is specifically why putative doesn't work here. Suggesting otherwise is OR throught he use of blinders - finding one statement that supports your personal view whilst ignoring the rest. I would like to think that you are a better editor than to fall into that trap.

As well, I utterly disagree with the use of "observing a concordance" as an effective replacement for "noting the relationship", as an editorial solidarity on the issue of Christian overtones simply doesn't exist between the reviewers. It simply doesn't, Viriditas. While some reviewers noted the marketing-based opening of the film in the US during the Christmas holiday is noteworthy, it was by no means a unanimous vote. Perhaps if it had been released everywhere during Christmas (UK and US), it would have been closer to what you are attempting to describe. However, it wasn't. Somehoiw, i think you on some level know this, and are somehow thinking that the removal of this concordance nonsense somehow damages the article's section on religion. It doesn't. It just simply defines the response better.

I am here to assist in improving the article. You have been adding citations, and that is nifty. I am good at cleaning up text and removing incorrect information. I will not keep re-defending my edits to you. They are clear and supported. If you find yourself unable to respond in a civil manner and AGF, you might want to consider either taking a short break from the article or pursuing WP:DR. I will ignore any post that doesn't provide me with the same level of respect that you yourself wish to receive.

I do hope you take the advice to heart, and be more polite and constructive in your posts. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The events I describe consist of your disruptive, trollish editing behavior that has been ongoing for more than three months and shows no signs of ending. Several editors left the article due to your inability to listen and understand basic English. Maria had to continually repeat herself and left in frustration. Erik was upset at you for constantly trying to add OR and upset at me for confronting you. I've repeatedly asked you not to use my talk page for your continued barrage of false accusations and attacks, but your statement above shows that you do not understand the simple word, "no". Do not use my talk page to discuss this article. I hope that was clear enough for you. You say you "chose to come back to this article to improve it", but I see no evidence you have ever improved it, or performed the most basic research in that regard. My work here does not consist of "adding references" as you imply. It involves researching the best sources and composing good prose. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing the same. I even tried to help you and other editors out by sharing this research on the temp page and asking for it to be added into the main article: instead you have done nothing but troll the talk page for three months and engage in edit wars on the main article page. You have the audacity to claim that you have cautioned me "on starting up another series of edit wars, as it might cause the article to lose its GA rating was just that - a caution", when in reality you started and engaged in the latest edit war by reverting a misplaced adjective ("apparent") back into the article from a previous version, again, weakening the prose and introducing ambiguity. Your block log speaks volumes about your propensity for disruption. Your disagreement of the use of "'apparent" vs. "putative" is ridiculous and is based on your refusal to do the research and read the sources. The source you provide describing the HP as a chimera supports the use of "putative Human Project", not "apparent last hope". You yourself state that "nothing certain is known about the Human project throughout the film," again supporting the use putative. There is no source that I am aware of that describes the hope as apparent, nor is it good style to use adjectives in that way, per style guides. Please revisit the best sources so that you can understand your mistakes. Your statement about "observing a concordance" is in error as well, and most tellingly, alludes to a previous comment you made on talk (now in the archives) where you stated there were no Christian themes in the film, and that you failed to see them. Again, wrong, just like your statement that "editorial solidarity on the issue of Christian overtones...doesn't exist between the reviewers". It most certainly does, and I can say that after doing the research and reading close to 100 articles, both electronic and paper, on the topic. The sources strongly support this theme. You also claim that "it was by no means a unanimous vote", which is just absurd. There isn't a single review decrying Christian themes. This is what I mean when I say you are trolling, because in all honesty, your arguments are nonsensical and disruptive. Further, what you say on the topic of the UK and US release is irrelevant. At least half a dozen non-US film critics have made this observation. This is why I have called you a troll; you are arguing about nothing to waste precious time that could be spent by editors improving the article. You claim this is "dissent". Greaţ, take it to a blog or a web forum, but here it's nonsense. If you were truly interested in improving the article, you would make an concerted effort to verify sources and merge content from the temp page. You haven't. Instead, you continue to edit war and make outrageous claims on talk. Stop it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed tha tlittle bit there about how you need to AGF, and act civilly, I will ask you - yet again - to stop the personal attacks. I am cuious as to why you feel the need to continually be reminded of this. I've done the research, Viriditas. your choices are simply not as strong as the alternatives. This is the first rule of editing: if you ar enot prepared to have your edits challenged, you had best not begin editing. If you truly feel as strongly about your edits as better than anyone else's, stop the personal attacks and put your money where your mouth is: request mediation or get a Third Opinion and get an uninvolved editor to weigh in. In the past, when an independent editor weighed in, I followed the judgment thereof.

And again, stop with the personal attacks. There are very real repercussions for continuing personal attacks when I have been civil with you. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks and you haven't challenged anything. You have simply transgressed to your usual pet theories, this time reaching back into the talk archives to revive another one of your erroneous claims. If you have sources to support your ideas, please provide them. —Viriditas | Talk 01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, I won't point out the two personal attacks you made in the three sentences immediately above. Precisely, what "usual pet theories" am I supposedly "transgressing" (improper use of that particular word, btw). As well, the sources you are asking me to cite have already been provided in the form of definitions from two different dictionaries, both of which indicate your misapplication of the words that have been changed in favor of both accuracy and clarity. I have been wrong before, and when I am, I admit it. This isn't a tweaking of a source, this is simple reading of a dictionary definition. If you have forgotten it, you are welcome to reread it above.

Should I infer from your second avoidance of the subject of mediation that you do not stand by your edits? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not being clear. You have transgressed to your usual pet theories, reaching back into the talk archives to ressurect vanquished, decomposing arguments. Further, the chimera is not hope but the Human Project itself. "The rebels intend that she be taken to 'the Human Project', a refuge somewhere abroad created by scientists, artists and other people of good will as the best hope of mankind, though this legendary place may well be a chimera." The Human Project is the thing hoped for but illusory or impossible to achieve, not hope itself. BTW, only trolls argue about mundane dictionary definitions. —Viriditas | Talk 06:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys... just visiting here... lighten up, will ya? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Your mediation on this page is always welcome. —Viriditas | Talk 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I'd mediate this conflict, long in the making. The best advice I can suggest is to seriously make your tones more genial. Maybe you did that before, and this just happens to be a backslide to the first days, but in discussions like these, tone is important for compromise. You don't want to compromise when someone sounds like they're talking down to you, do you? That's another thing... these phrases like "pet theories" and "trollish behavior" and whatever else has been used by either side, should be avoided. They're words loaded with incivility from the get-go. Surely more objective terms -- with a more reasonable tone -- can be used. Lastly, if you want to compromise, sometimes you have to give up one thing to get another. This is already a stellar article, guys... I doubt that the large majority of people who read about the film here are going to go, "Hey! That wording sucks! I'm not reading this article anymore!" Has a peer review been done for this article? Maybe you could go for the gold and nominate it for Featured status, then fix up the article based on other editors' recommendations. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review might be a good idea soon, but right now, the article is poorly written and disjointed. Instead of getting bogged down on talk, I would like to take the time to tie the loose threads together and make the article informative for the general reader. I realize FA-standards aren't what they should be, but I would not give this version a promotion to either A or FA. The lead could be expanded, the plot could be trimmed down, the themes and production sections are barely literate, the soundtrack section could be expanded and the DVD section needs to be expanded. When that is done, then yes, a peer review would be great. —Viriditas | Talk 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)