Talk:Children of Men/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Intro: "Britain, the last functioning government"...

Er, the propagandistic TV ad certainly implies this, but that doesn't make it so within the film's canon. Mdiamante 06:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Baby" Diego lived in Buenos Aires, and as far as I know, that's in Argentina. Kalez 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.36.85 (talk)

You're both morons. Especially the one who thinks that because "Baby" Diego wasn't from Briton then other Governments must be fuctioning the same. Great logic there.

FA?

Has anyone ever considered nominating this article for FA status? I'd definitely support (and it's not necessarily because the movie is my favourite of all time, along with Titanic and Citizen Kane).

Also, can someone add a "See also" section? The article seems to end too abruptly... Orane (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it's a Wikipedia principle somewhere that great articles don't need "See also" sections. I think the logic is that if something needs also seeing -ahem- then it should be part of the prose somewhere. Seegoon 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've heard about that, but it's not principle per se, simply preference. 'See Also' is still outlined in our Manual of Style. Orane (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The outline does not mean that you must use those sections. It merely describes the most common sections and their usage. —Viriditas | Talk 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. That's why I said it's simply preference to place the see also section. (Seegoon had said you're not supposed to have it, and I told him/her not true. You can still have it, since it's still outlined in our MoS.) Personally, I love to see it. But you don't have to put it. Orane (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to see in a "see also" section for this article? I can think of some things related to immigration or infertility, or even religion, but I'm not sure how useful it would be here. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it isn't needed, really. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Symbolic Use of Music in the Film

We should have a goal of adding a section specifically about the use of music in the film as a means of highlighting an aspect of the action onscreen. The filmmakers do this at least twice that I have noticed.

Kindertotenlieder. This was discussed earlier in the discussion. During the scene at Jasper's house in which he tells Kee and Miriam the story of the death of Theo and Jullian's son, the music playing in the background is the first movement from Gustav Mahler's Kindertotenlieder ("Songs on the Death of Children").

Arbeit macht frei. The Libertines' song Arbeit Macht Frei plays during the scene at the internment camp. Arbeit macht frei is the famous slogan placed on the gates of many Nazi concentration camps, and the song is about concentration camp members. As the article discusses, the scene in the movie alludes to Nazi camps, and using this song at that moment in the film seems like the filmmakers are underlining a point.

These are just two examples I have found. Given how intentional these seem to be, I would bet there are other examples in the film. Unfortunately I have not found any secondary sources which discuss this aspect of the movie, and don't have much time to spend on wikipedia. So I pass the challenge on to all of you: find more examples of music used in this way, find sources to cite, and write a new (sub)section for the article exploring this technique in the film. I think it's worth doing; it would add yet another interesting layer to this movie.

Gzoek 06:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It goes even farther than that. According to an interview with the director, some of the music was used in the film because it happened to be playing while they were writing the screenplay. But yes, every song in the film has a specific, direct meaning attached to the scene. —Viriditas | Talk 23:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Trivia

When the protagonist and his cannabis growing friend are in the greenhouse used for growing the cannabis, the song playing in the background is "Life in a Glasshouse" by Radiohead. byelf2007 09/11/07

Film's cars

The article currently states "[...] Cars were made to resemble modern ones at first glance, although a closer look made them seem unfamiliar." Some of them are clearly recognizable: the main characters drive a Fiat Multipla during the ambush scene, and later flee to the safehouse in a Renault Scénic. Other cars are the Fiat Ducato (the Fishes' black van; perhaps it's a Peugeot or Citroën sister), Peugeot 1007 and Renault Modus (traffic cars); the limousine that takes Theo to his cousin's is clearly British, I don't know whether Bentley, Jaguar or Rolls-Royce. The differences between the film's and the real models are basically the front and rear ends, which are blackened and whose lights and grilles are different. I don't know if this piece of information is relevant enough, but the French-Italian origin of the car design could be added to the article, couldn't it? -- NaBUru38 00:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you seem to know a lot about cars! :) Unfortunately, your keen spotting of these models isn't really citable, and there is also the issue of notability. An argument occurred early in the article's creation wherein I wanted to add a fairly advanced-looking weapon, and was correctly nixed as to the lack of notability. I am only hoping that I am addressing it better with you than was done for me. When considering whether something is notable, ask yourself if the info you want to add is vital to the subject of the article. If it is, include it and hope others feelthe same way. If you get reverted, discuss it. If you aren't reverted, then at least one other person felt it noteworthy, too. :)

Again, good attention to detail, NaBUru38. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I seems the Scénic is actually a four-door Avantime. Did I just say four-door!? That means it was specially made for the film! (The Internet Movie Car Database shows in fact nearly every model featured in the film, most of them barely visible in screen) Well, I would say the chosen cars are "strange" in the case of the Fiats and French models (Renaults' tails, Multipla's bonnet, Peugeots' mouths), which are the ones clearly shown. I should look for some reliable website stating this, but it might get impossible. -- NaBUru38 19:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A minor query on the plot section

In the fourth paragraph of the plot section, it details the ambush of the main characters in their car when they are traveling through the woods, goes on to say that the police soon follow them, but omits that Luke (Chiwetel Ejiofor) shoots the police officers dead when they are pulled over for inspection. I was wondering if anyone else felt that this was important enough to mention as it caught my attention when I didn't see it included. --Spobbs 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me for not initially placing my edit under old text. --Spobbs 13:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you like as long as you keep the plot section short and to the point, sticking to major plot points. —Viriditas | Talk 11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Differences from the novel?

No section on how the film differs from the novel? That's too bad. I always rather enjoy reading about that. :) RobertM525 09:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It can be added, but requires careful sourcing as some editors will take the opportunity to write editorials. I think we should have at least two paragraphs on the subject. I have enough material for at least one large sourced paragraph at this time. —Viriditas | Talk 12:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's please place the paragraphs in the Production section, perhaps following or merged with the first paragraph that addresses the adaptation process.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. Only problem is, the "one paragraph" I have has now turned into four. :( —Viriditas | Talk 09:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cinematical.com a reliable source?

I just fixed a ref format for a Clive Owen writing credit. The source is Cinematical.com, which appears to be a blog. The actual interview appears legit, and the author Kim Voynar has a net presence, so is this a reliable source?
Jim Dunning | talk 16:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of film websites straddle the line between blogs and reliable sources. Interviews and set visits conducted by them however, are reliable. Alientraveller (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ exclamations

I was hoping to discuss the second sentence of the following (from the Myth and Religion section of the article):

Kee's pregnancy is revealed to Theo in a barn, alluding to the manger of the Nativity scene, and when Theo asks Kee who the father of her child is, she jokingly responds, "I'm a virgin." Additionally, when other characters discover Kee and her baby, they respond with "Jesus Christ" or the sign of the cross.

I am not finding the original article (by Richstatter, Katje (Mar-Apr 2007). "Two Dystopian Movies...and their Visions of Hope" (Reprint). Tikkun 22-2), and the publishing magazine, Tikkun, isn't available for article search outside of a subscription. Because of this unavailability to verify that the exclamations of Jesus Christ (or the making the sign of the cross) being intended as a Christian symbolism connection between Jesus' and Dylan's birth, I am concerned that an OR connection has been made. It would seem a more plausible explanation that these exclamations to be of surprise and awe at a highly unexpected surprise and not of identification/comparison with the Christian Messiah. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 05:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jandry2 changed the material and added his observation "Theo asks Kee who the father of her child is, she jokingly responds, "I'm a virgin" on 05:07, 26 March 2008.[1]. The original sourced material should read:

The film has been noted for its use of Christian symbolism; for example, British terrorists named "Fishes" protect the rights of refugees. Opening on Christmas Day in the United States, critics compared the characters of Theo and Kee with Joseph and Mary, calling the film a "modern-day Nativity story": Kee's pregnancy is revealed to Theo in a barn, alluding to the manger of the Nativity scene, and when other characters discover Kee and her baby, they respond with "Jesus Christ" or the sign of the cross.

Jandry2 isn't wrong, but his addition is not supported by the sources in question. The article in Tikkun states:

The need to find or create meaning seems to be one commonality of human existence--through storytelling, myth, or religion, we can connect to our core decency, a place untouched by the vagaries of the world....Without the ability to reproduce, human extinction is imminent, and in this context it seems plausible--since it's clear that animals can still breed--that God's wrath toward humankind, or our own inability to leave genetics alone, might be the reason....Rations include antidepressants and suicide pills, and citizens like Theo (Clive Owen) plod along, self-medicating, averting their eyes to the caged refugees, protesting religious zealots and random violence. Theo is...recruited...to be a part of a guerrilla group called the fishes...There is a class component to this struggle, with parallels to liberation theology movements, but...the resistance forces are plagued with the same cutthroat hierarchy as the dominant society. Theo is entrusted with transporting Kee (Claire-hope Ashitey), who is miraculously pregnant--a fact tht is revealed to him in a barn (manger). The religious allusions range from blatant to subtle, and Western (upon seeing Kee and her newborn, the most common response is either "Jesus Christ" or signing the cross) to Eastern (Kee's midwife chanting Tibetan mantras) expressions. Kee's child is the last hope for human survival, a spark that transforms Theo, who commits his whole self--running barefoot (literally) over the rubble--to help her escape. And though organized religion is mostly portrayed as reactionary--the two sects of protesters are the "Renouncers" and "Repenters"--the quest itself might suggest something different. The citizens of Children of Men are disconnected from nature and themselves, a split that suggests a spiritual crisis, and a yearning to return to the basics; no killing, stealing, lying or coveting? Or better yet, the healing values of tolerance, faith, brotherly love, and altruism.

If he's interested, I believe I can help him find a source, but I don't have it front of me. However, I do have a printed copy of both Tikkun and the Omaha World Herald in front of me, both of which can be found in the EBSCO database system of every major public library. I don't see any "OR connection" except for the addition by Jandry2. After all, the theme in question is myth and religion, so it's right on topic and its covered by many sources. Typically, religious believers aren't concerned with "plausible explanations", so I don't see how such concerns are relevant, but by all means, find a reliable source that addresses that very question and add a rebuttal. —Viriditas | Talk 07:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For Jandry2: Steve Vineberg in Christian Century (02/06/07, Vol. 124, Issue 3) writes: "In James's scheme, Kee is the "key" to the future of humanity. Cuarón underscores the idea that she is also an earthbound version of the Virgin Mary, carrying the miracle child of an unseen father (she isn't sure of his identity) whose birth will change the world..." Vineberg appears to be familiar with the novel, so that statement could confuse people, considering that Kee isn't in the book. —Viriditas | Talk 07:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error in Jandry's edit. It confused matters. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Omaha World-Herald

From the eighth paragraph in the article from Fischbach, Bob (2007-01-05). "Movie Review: Acting in 'Children of Men' makes futuristic film engrossing". Omaha World-Herald. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help):

The almost mythical Human Project is rumored to be working towards a new society.

—Viriditas | Talk 08:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry; may I ask how you are finding that particular article? I am unable to locate it via typical search. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I explained in the above section EBSCO database. You can find it in every major public library, or access it from home with your library card. —Viriditas | Talk 08:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I was unable to locate it using such. I should point out that a great many libraries typically do not have EBSCO resources. Could I trouble you to point out what criteria are used when sources aren't readily verifiable? I am not doubting the source, per se; I am asking hte question from the point of view of someone who may not have access (for verification purposes) to either EBSCO or JSTOR resources. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you name a public library in your area that does not offer EBSCO or similar article databases in 2008? Almost every library in the U.S. pays a fee to these companies for their patrons to access archival articles. The criteria is basically to do what you have done: place a message on the talk page asking for verification. However, it is my understanding that the WP:REFDESK is used for this purpose, as is a related page composed of Wikipedans who have offered to search these databases for interested editors. I can't recall the name of the subpage right now, but someone else will chime in with it. The page has a list of editors who are willing to look up articles for you. —Viriditas | Talk 09:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I could name four, but because of privacy concerns (as well as the likelihood that the geographical absence of EBSCO or JSTOR isn't unique), I am going to abstain from mentioning them. Here on the mainland (presuming again that you in Hawaii), municipal libraries sometimes don't have the resources to subscribe to the online db's.

As far as Refdesk goes, i think we both know that they take forever, if they bother answering at all. You will recall that a claim that we both were curious about sourcing (re: Lennon mentions in a certain NY guide) remains, many months later, still non-verified. I think while its great in theory, the practical expectation is that Refdesk simply isn't all that helpful given our time constraints.

However, that might be a topic for discussion elsewhere, ie. how often should we utilize atypical databases that aren't universally accessible (or are fee-based subscription services). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arcayne, I'm wondering whether in your sourcing philosophy you're confusing the guide recommending not to add links requiring registration or subscription (see Wikipedia:External_links#Sites_requiring_registration) with Wikipedia:Verifiability. We shouldn’t add links that people can’t actually access but that has nothing to do with verifiability. To be verifiable doesn’t mean a source needs to be easily accessible on the internet, it means it needs to be a WP:Reliable source. Are you still worried about the Lennon source? I thought that was resolved ages ago, don’t you remember when Viriditas even uploaded photocopies of the source, linked to the text in Google Books, and even contacted the publisher and confirmed it? What more verification do you feel is necessary? I see it’s also on AmazonOnlineReader here. --MPerel 11:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi M. No, I wasn't confusing the two articles. When a source is questioned, the source's reliability depends, I think, on not just taking the editor at their word but being able to verify the source for one's self. As the old adage goes, 'salute optimism; await evidence.'

And no, the Lennon issue was never resolved. The last I heard from you, you were going to come up with new ways for V and I to interact. That was before Christmas. As you seem to be operating just fine with V, I am presuming you felt no other development was necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, MPerel just resolved the Lennon issue. Right here. Did you visit the Amazon.com link MPerel gave you? The material you claim does not exist is in that link. What's the ISBN of the book you claim it doesn't appear in? She just gave you the electronic link to your book, where you will find the material that appears on page 212, the same material that you continue to claim does not exist. It's sort of hard to argue with the facts like that, but there you go. Good luck. —Viriditas | Talk 12:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not having a discussion about another article in this discussion, except to state that my own conversations with the publisher confirmed that there were two different versions (and not just two similar books) due to printing errors. If you wish to continue this discussion, you may do so in the pertinent article, on your page, or not at all, seeing that the statement in question hasn't been in use for almost 6 months. It's a rather dead horse. Either way, this article discussion page really isn't the place for it, I am sure you would agree. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Printing errors? Arcayne, you always put a smile on my face. Glad to have you here, friend. —Viriditas | Talk 12:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Really?That's very nice of you to say. I also find you greatly amusing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mutant Reviewers from Hell

How does this self-published website used as a source in the body of the article meet the barest, most minimum qualifications for WP:RS? All of the "about" links consist of Rick Roll hoaxes. —Viriditas | Talk 08:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It should perhaps be noted that with today being April 1st, some links all over the net are going to undoubtedly look odd. I did read the review for CoM, and it included the material cited. I am not sure how you are arriving at the conclusion that the site is a self-published one. It appears to be no less credible than, say, Chris Gore's Filmthreat or Box Office Mojo. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Film Threat is an actual, recognized published film magazine that while initially underground and half-serious, had an enormous distribution channel for a zine. It was in publication from 1985-1997 and even published a video guide. Larry Flynt published the magazine from 1991-1997 and they had an actual editorial board. Gore also hosted a cable TV show. Today's net version of Film Threat features articles and interviews with professionals in their field. Mutant Reviewers from Hell doesn't seem to meet the barest of these qualifications. —Viriditas | Talk 08:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, it seems to have a fairly solid base of reviews and, whilst it doesn't have all the pretty trappings of funding that the other two have, it seems reliable. It doesn't look to have been around for that long, but has built a steady core of reviews and articles. We haven't agreed on sources before. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. As the claim (the statement regarding the laughter and shouts of children) isn't an extraordinary one, the source isn't required to be extraordinary, just reliable and verifiable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to be very open-minded about these things. The general rule is, if you use an unreliable source to support material in an article and another editor questions the source based on WP:RS, then you should find a second source, more reliable than the first, to support the same material. —Viriditas | Talk 09:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to be less open-minded about sources, actually, but I do find myself in disagreement with your characterization of MRfH as "unreliable". As it isn't really such, there really isn't a need to duplicate sources. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How does the source you added (named in the heading) meet WP:RS for inclusion in this article? Please take a look at this link for guidance. As the guideline says, ...self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable...if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Therefore, I request another source that meets the basic, minimum requirements for reliability. It's a very simple request. The website you added is a personal website belonging to Justin Olivetti, a horror film fan. —Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask you to point out where the site indicates it is "self-published" or a personal website? As the site clearly isn't a blog or forum chat or similar material, I am curious as to how you arrived at that assessment. I would point out that using Internic to determine the owner of the site isn't the same as calling it a personal website. Many websites are owned by single individuals, and this doesn't interfere with their reliability. Lastly, I would pont out that even if it is self-published, it seems to fulfill the criteria for inclusion of WP:SELFPUB- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also point out that apparently, Rick Roll hoaxes are permeating the web today. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

USA Today refers to the website as a "horror film fan site", in other words, a personal web site: "The idea of an evil doll come to life is a fun, freaky concept," says longtime fan Justin Olivetti, 28, a youth pastor in Livonia, Mich., who runs the horror film fan site www.mutantreviewers.com. "I'll definitely see Seed of Chucky."[2] —Viriditas | Talk 10:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Olivetti is a pastor who runs a personal website; In other words, the site fails inclusion criteria for WP:SELFPUB. —Viriditas | Talk 10:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing how Olivetti - if he is in fact the sole person running the entire site (after all, we are speaking of USA Today) fails any of the seven criteria noted at selfpub. Using the reasoning you've suggested, we could not use info from a privately-owned Jack the Ripper site, even if it uses solid information, nor could we utilize information from websites about San Francisco burritos. I simply don't see any failing in the Selfpub criteria. If you could point out which of the seven listed criteria for inclusion that the site fails, that would be appreciated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And just to be very clear, yes Olivetti is in fact the sole person running the entire website, and that has been confirmed by USA Today[3] and a simple whois. —Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Olivetti is not a film critic who has been published by reliable film journals or newspapers. He is a pastor and the owner of a fansite - a personal website where he self-publishes film reviews. That website doesn't meet the minimum standards for inclusion. Please stop adding personal websites and find a reliable source that has an editorial board and fact-checking capabilities. This is the hallmark of a reliable source. —Viriditas | Talk 10:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. That his website has published/uploaded film reviews is not disputed. What he does in his day job is not of consequence here. The site is not a fansite, as CoM (clearly not a horror film) was reviewed. I am not sure how you are determining that he - and he alone - is publishing each and every one of the film reviews listed, but I don't see any indication of that. As far as an "editorial board" or "fact-checking capabilities", could you point out where in the policies or guidelines these new criteria are stipulated?

I have been poite, and would appreciate you addressing solely the content of my posts and not me. I have asked for you to specifically note how the website fails any of the seven criteria of WP:SELFPUB (if indeed it is a self-published website, and not simply a personally-owned one). If you could do that, I would appreciate it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only addressed your addition of unreliable websites as sources and the removal of reliable sources as "unreliable" - even in cases where you did not check the sources. Per SELFPUB, Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves. This article is not about Olivetti or his website. Our standards of inclusion are higher and require WP:RS that are not self-published, have editorial boards, and are known for rigorous fact-checking. Authors should be either noted film critics in their field of expertise, or journalists working under editorial oversight in a reliable publication. It's very simple. I've asked to you a supply a more reliable source to replace the one you have added. Please do so. —Viriditas | Talk 11:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the citation is addressing a review done by the website. I am not sure why you kept citing SELFPUB, as it was neither applicable nor in volation of that. A more appropriate link might have been Self-published sources. As the notability of the source has been addressed (USA Today specifically quoted the owner of the site in regards to a film review) by a third-party source in its relevant field, it fulfills the criteria for inclusion. :::Again, I have asked you to cite where you are garnering your (and not "our", as in Wikipedia-en) additional criteria, specifically the requirement of an editorial board or the "rigorous fact-checking" (which undoubtedly comes into play during film reviews). Please take the time to answer my question, with the understanding that your own personal interpretation of policy is not going to be sufficient to deny inclusion of a source that states something unique and interesting to the article. If you feel another source would be helpful to your understanding or clarification of the material, please feel free to seek it out and add it. As per the policy and guidelines as they exist today, the source is reliable enough, notable enough and relevant enough for inclusion. If you can quote specifically where in WP specifically notes the additional criteria you've noted above, please let me know, as it would undoubtedly be a wealth of knowledge for us all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, your April Fool's Day joke was very funny, but I believe you only have 12 hours left to revert yourself. This edit you made added material from a personal website that directly quotes the IMDb "trivia" page located here and acknowledges quoting IMDb for the material directly above it. The personal website also quotes Wikipeda below it. We cannot use trivia from IMDb in a film article, nor can we use personal websites that directly quote that trivia verbatim, and acknowledge it as a source, nor can we self-referentially quote personal websites that cite Wikipedia. —Viriditas | Talk 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A. My edit is not an April Fool's joke.

B. The source of the statement is not directly or specifically attributed to Imdb. While the cite mentions both Imdb and Wikipedia, so does Film Review. Should we exclude sources from them as well?

C. For the third time, I have asked for the specific locations of the additional criteria you specified for inclusion. Neither RS, V or CITE mentions the material you are utilizing as hurdles to inclusion. Unfortunately, until WP choses to enact these new criteria, they are not going to be used as a filter for sources. If you want, I can suggest a few places where you might want to begin lobbying for such a change. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The criteria is found in WP:RS and here, and is the bedrock of all sourcing guidelines, on and off Wikipeda. Contrary to what you claim, the source of the statement is directly attributed to IMDb above it, and represents an exact quote from IMDb verbatim. You did not use the film review to quote a reviewer; you cited a trivia section on a personal website directly sourced to an IMDb trivia page, trivia that has been previously removed from this page many times in the past. Here is the material side by side for you to compare:

Mutant Reviewers from Hell, a self-published website from Pastor Olivetti, sourced to IMDb	IMDb - Crazy credits for Children of Men
At the very end, one can read "Shantih, Shantih, Shantih" with children shouting and laughing on the soundtrack, which can be heard repeatedly throughout the end credits.[4]	At the very end, one can read "Shantih, Shantih, Shantih" with children shouting and laughing on the soundtrack, which can be heard repeatedly throughout the end credits. This is the last line of T.S. Eliot's 1922 poem "The Wasteland." "Shantih" means "peace" in Hindi.[5]

Looking at the our good friend the Internet Archive shows that the IMDb trivia page preceded The Mutant Reviwers from Hell website by a month. The IMDb - Crazy credits for Children of Men trivia page was first archived on January 19, 2007 and the CoM Mutant Reviewers from Hell page was first archived on February 22, 2007. This is open and shut. The personal website quotes IMDb, the quote is directly lifted from an IMDb trivia page, and the source is not used to cite a film review but to cite IMDb trivia. End of story. —Viriditas | Talk 12:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Again, RS, Selfpub (or any part of V) state the specific criteria you've additionally specified ("editorial boards", "rigorous fact-checking," and so on and so forth). The source meets the current policies and guidelines as they exist at this time. If you wish to seek a 'raising of the the bar' for inclusion, you must first seek to change the relevant polices to accomplish this.

I apologize for not suggesting that you do so - I had simply assumed that you would - but you should probably look at the source info again. It says "some sources Imdb". Your pointing out the Imdb page and review updating aside, can you specifically cite that the material is from Imdb, and not a part of the actual review? I mean, most of us actually stayed to the end of the credits, and heard the laughter and shouting. I must assume the reviewers did as well, thus noting the instance of such. Since you cannot specifically state with absolute assuredness that the laughter and shouting of children was not observed/heard by the reviewers, then we cannot be sure if the info taken from Imdb is about the Shantih, the authorship of the Wasteland poem, or something else.

Perhaps you should apply your rigor of opposing any addition I choose to make to the article to the other citations as well. Actually, go ahead and do that. I remain unconvinced by your arguments in regards to this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, I want to reiterate something here, in case my dear friend Arcayne doesn't understand where I am coming from. I seriously want this material to be in the article. But I don't want it to come at the expense of circumventing the use of reliable sources to do it. I would much rather use the film as a primary source - that is to say, quote the film directly - much like we do a plot section. The problem is, we would have to be careful writing about it in the themes section. It would help greatly if we had a special section devoted just to "closing credits" where we could place this material. It would be acceptable to describe the credits in this section using just the film as a source. However, placing it in the themes section as it is, sourced to an IMDb trivia page, doesn't really work. The context of the material is not discussed in a reliable source in terms of religion, and until it is, we are engaging in OR. A short-term solution would be to place it in an isolated closing credit section and just describe the credits, the songs that are played, and the end sequence. It should also be noted that another self-published source supporting the statement "these words are also used at the end of an Upanishad and in the final line of T. S. Eliot's poem, The Waste Land" is currently a deadlink. Unlike Mutant Reviewers, this site has actual, professional writers and an editorial policy. I'm curious if Arcayne is going to replace the link or just remove the content. After all, we want to verify it, right? —Viriditas | Talk 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You might wish to more closely examine my comments above, my dear, sweet, lovable and furry friend Viriditas. While you have made an interesting argument that the reviewers chose to copy a trivia bit from Imdb when they actually sat in the theater and reviewed the movie themselves, you haven't been able to prove that the citation came from there specifically. Your proposed solution doesn't really work, either, as the laughter and shouts of children isn't part of the released musical soundtrack. As for the TS Eliot link, I am sure you or I or someone else can find a new link. We both know that links go dead all the time, ergo maintenance fixes. Feel free to grab a new Wasteland link.

And if you are curious about something regarding me, Viriditas, please just ask, honey. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, you haven't actually used the source (Olivetti) as a reference. The source you have used is a self-published film review on a personal website which contains a trivia section at the bottom that is directly sourced to IMDb and Wikipedia. We don't cite personal websites that use trivia from IMDb and content from Wikipeda. Furthermore, its placement in the religion and myth section doesn't work because the original context of the content is neither myth or religion but trivia from IMDb. The content has to be appropriate to the context, and the sources have to be reliable. —Viriditas | Talk 13:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm think it was sourced correctly. Calling it a self-published film review (where the presumable owner's review is but one of many listed for CoM), whic notes that some info was taken from Imdb - which info, you cannot say with absolute assuredness. The source is reliable, the statement is verifiable and also has the advantage of being accurate.

Clearly, we aren't going to find common ground on this (no big surprise there). Please feel free to submit the matter to a neutral third party for evaluation. I am not convinced byyour arguments. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I demonstrated quite accurately and adequately, that the section in question has nothing to do with the film review, has nothing to do with religion or myth in the context of the review, and is sourced directly to IMDb, based on the preceding section which describes IMDb as a source, the link to the trivia page on IMDb itself which duplicates the content in question verbatim, and the dates in the Internet Archive which show that the content appeared on the IMDb trivia page one month before Mutant Reviewers copied it to their site -- in a trivia section sourced to IMDb above and below it. Since you are the one who added the source, it is your responsibility to show how it can be considered a WP:RS, how it concerns myth and religion in the context of the review, and how it is acceptable to use trivia from IMDb. (unsigned comment by Viriditas 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, you are now arguing something else entirely, Viriditas. You are now arguing that the statement doesn't belong in the section. As your arguments have not convinced me, perhaps your time would be better spent in explaining hy the information doesn't belong in the section. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And I thought I was quite clear; I wasn't citing Imdb; I was citing the film review. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you are the one who added the material, it is your responsiblity to defend it. You have not responded to any of my points above. The fact that your statement doesn't belong in the section is another argument altogether, but it's one of many I have offered you to think about. It is not my arguments that are required to convince; I have not added the material in dispute. The burden of proof remains on you, the person who added the material, to explain and defend your edits, and to convince others that your edits are sound. So far, you have not responded to any of my questions, so I will ask them again:

How does the source you have chosen to use meet WP:RS? Please reply directly to that question.

What is the editorial policy of this site and who is their publisher? Please reply directly to that question.

Who is the author of the film review and what is their background in film criticism and/or journalism? Which reliable sources frequently publish their work? Please reply to this question directly.

Where does the material you have chosen to add to the article appear in a film review with an authors name attached? Please reply to this question directly.

Is it acceptable to use trivia from IMDb that is replicated on a personal website that cites IMDb and Wikipedia as sources? Please answer this question directly.

Where does the film reviewer discuss the material you have added in relation to myth and religion? Please answer this question directly.

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy day to defend your edits. —Viriditas | Talk 13:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have answered your questions above rather clearly. Unfortunately, you haven't established to my satisfaction (or with any degree of specificity) the additional criteria you now wish to impose on citations for this article. In point of fact, you keep pointing to RS and V's selfpub as the source for these pet rules, when in fact, neither policy goes this far. When and if you specifically answer my questions as to where in policy we ask for these new things now, we will go on. Until then, I think the matter is going to remain unresolved, because I am not going to defend that which doesn't really need defense under the current policy. When you provide the very specific locations for these new interpretations of the current criteria, I will be happy to answer your challenges. If you don't wish to do so, please do not trouble yourself to await a response, and simply feel free to contact a neutral admin.

And, on a side note, you should know very well now that demanding anything of me is never going to garner you cooperation. Ask nicely (after you explain where precisely you are gathering this new criteria from, which should be easy for you - just make a table for it :) ), and you might find a different response. If you find that beyond your abilities, go ahead and contact that neutral admin as I mentioned before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Where have you answered a single question about your edits? I don't have the burden of proof. These are your edits, not mine. To repeat, how does the source you have chosen to use meet WP:RS? What is the editorial policy of this site and who is their publisher? Who is the author of the film review and what is their background in film criticism and/or journalism? Which reliable sources frequently publish their work? Where does the material you have chosen to add to the article appear in a film review with an authors name attached? Is it acceptable to use trivia from IMDb that is replicated on a personal website that cites IMDb and Wikipedia as sources? Where does the film reviewer discuss the material you have added in relation to myth and religion? If you can't answer these questions, then why should your edits remain in the article? —Viriditas | Talk 14:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but when you address my concerns about where you have found the new set of criteria (editorial boards, fact-checking, etc.) for inclusion (which doesn't appear to have been applied to any other editor's additions but mine), I am afraid I am going to have to assume that these are personal interpretations of existing policy. I believe I stated above that if you are able to present something a tad more specific than a simple acronym (which doesn't say what you apparently want it to say), I will be happy to answer the questions. Until then, I will be unable to assist you. Of course, if you are able to find a neutral admin who agrees that your interpretations of these policies are not being vindictively implied, then I will respond. Until then, I will wait for you to provide me with what I am asking. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read WP:RS and WP:V and take your concerns to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Make sure you show them the links to the talk archives where you have spent the last year tendentiously trying to add this material to the article. Until then, unless you can defend your edits, I see no reason why they should remain in the article. Furthermore, the second link supporting the material in the next sentence is dead, and there is no way to verify the material. Is there a reason you have left a deadlink in the article? It's ironic that the entire statement that you added to the theme section comes directly from IMDb's trivia page. So, is it your opinion then, that it is entirely acceptable to add trivia to film articles from IMDb and personal websites? Where do these two sources even discuss myth and religion? —Viriditas | Talk 14:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already read these policies; I had already read them in the two dozen or so times you bring up that snippy remark. I am not going to argue with you I have clearly stated what you have to do to continue this discussion (bring evidence that our film sources need editorial boards, fact-checking staffs, etc), and have asked that you specifically address the edits and not the editor, as I have been the target for your uncivil behavior in the past.

I am not sure why you think I am going to answer your odd questions about the source of the citation in spite of your unpleasant behavior, but I assure you that unless you present specifically where in policies and guidelines it states these things, I will not be hurrying to answer you.

If you feel the matter is currently insoluble, please feel free - as I have advised you three times before - to seek out the advice or third opinion of a neutral admin. Until then, I am not sure what else we have to say. I am sorry that you felt it necessary to be uncivil again, and I am double sorry if you feel my insistence of you providing where you are garnering your criteria for inclusion is uncivil in and of itself. It is easier to disengage and await a neutral admin than continue to be pushed by you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know why you think I need to defend your tendentious insertion of an unreliable source into this article? —Viriditas | Talk 19:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a couple of mentions on NewsBank:

• LaCara, Len (2007-04-22). "Cruelest of months leaves more families grieving". Coshocton Tribune. Eliot ended his epic poem with the Sanskrit phrase 'Shantih shantih shantih,' which he said is feebly translated as 'the peace which passeth all understanding.' The bleak, brilliant film Children of Men ends with the same phrase. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Lowman, Rob (2007-03-27). "Cuaron vs. the world". Los Angeles Daily News. Cuaron is hopeful. The last thing you see on the screen is 'Shanti, shanti, shanti.'[sic] And he has given us hope in the best film of 2006, one that gives us the hope to keep going, that we'll wake up to the dangers we face. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Do what you like. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Support. Great work as always, Erik. —Viriditas | Talk 03:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on Shantih phrase

Continued from community discussion:

With the references I found and presented in the above discussion, would it be safe to say that we do not need to worry about the review from Mutant Reviewers from Hell anymore? My impression from discussion at WT:FILM is that the website was not reliable. We have a couple of print sources to reference instead, so I think we could move in a new direction regarding commentary about the phrase "Shantih shantih shantih" at the end of the film. My suggestion had been to provide a simple description of the display both visually and aurally, particularly a description that would not be contested. My concern had been that the sound of "children laughing" would be disputable, but apparently the English subtitles reflect this. Now, when we provide the reader with the description, we can follow up with commentary about the meaning of the phrase. While there is no actual commentary about the laughing children, I think it would be acceptable to include that detail and permit the reader to have his or her own take on how the sound ties in with the phrase or the film. I don't think that there is a concern of original research if we do not say anything about the laughing children beyond mentioning the detail. Perhaps Viriditas was concerned about its presentation in the Themes section, with the placement of the detail implying a correlation with the outlined themes (in particular, "Hope" and "Myth and religion")? Viriditas also suggested a screen cap of the phrase, though I'm still not clear why this is necessary. I think that a screen cap of another element under Themes would be more visually appealing. Feel free to share your thoughts about the presentation of the "Shantih" ending. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see the confusion. You may not be aware that the "sound of laughing children" occurs throughout the credits and between the songs played as the credits roll. The "Shantih" appears at the end of the credits. So there is no direct "tie-in" with the phrase. So, since the sound of laughing children appears throughout the credits, it really has nothing to do with the Shantih, and describing the sound of laughing children just in relation to the shantih in the theme section is really OR. We have a source that refers to the Shantih as a theme for hope. That's great. We don't have any sources for the laughing of children except for the user-generated IMDb "crazy trivia" page which appeared on the net just before someone added it to this article. A month after IMDb uploaded it to their trivia page, Pastor Olivetti, a horror film fan who runs a personal website devoted to film reviews, took the IMDb trivia verbatim and sourced the section above it to IMDb on his website. If anyone contacts him by e-mail, he will explain that he got the information from IMDb. In any case, there is consensus by the leading members of the Films WikiProject that his website does not meet WP:RS. So, we are left with adding the Shantih to the theme section on hope, and either leaving the "sound of laughing children" out of the article (it's pure trivia which is why no single film critic appears to have mentioned it in a published reliable source) or describing it as appearing in the credits in another part of the article, either in a screen capture that comments on the credits themselves (which is perfectly acceptable as it describes the scene). I'm pretty open about either using it in a caption or in a section only about the credits. But using it to describe the Shantih alone is not supported. If what I am saying is still not making sense, please ask me as many questions as you require. I want to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to deal with this year-long dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 03:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I had a nagging suspicion that the sound of children laughing wasn't limited to the showing of the phrase. (Been some time since I've seen the film, I suppose.) Since these elements are not specifically paired, I then agree with you. I think that commentary about the phrase would fit well under the "Hope" subsection, and based on the references available, the sound of children's laughter would be only a small detail in this article. If we can find commentary about that from reliable sources, great. (Would look now if I wasn't busy with this graduate paper -- I have enough distractions.) In the meantime, we can focus on solely the phrase and the commentary. Any specific issues with this? Is a screen cap necessary any longer if we take this path? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sounds like the right approach to take. —Viriditas | Talk 03:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with the speculation as to where the info from the website owned by Olivetti (not sure what sort of stigma the attachment of 'pastor' is supposed to be adding to his contribution to the site), it appears that the website hasn't garnered enough flash and pop from the Films wikiProject, (I'd hardly call it a consensus) and I guess for now, it's out.

I think that the sound of the laughter is being misconstrued. It occurs as the screen fades to black. The sounds don't "fade out" during the soundtrack, and continues throughout the credits until right before the Shantih. I wanted to make sure that no one was laboring under an inaccurate timeline. Because of this, the shantih and the laughter are paired/connected; in the way that a prayer precedes the closing 'amen,' the laughter of children (in a movie about the complete absence of children) is the prayer, and the shantih is the 'amen.' I will concede that the preceding is my non-usable assessment, as it is interpretational, not observational. What is observational is that the laughter is still part of the story that the director is telling. I am open to suggestions as to how to include the laughter, wich I feel is pretty important to the film.

I am not sure we can use the captioning, as the interpretation of the captioning agent might run into a rs issue. A few times during the film, the captioning agent mislabeled dialogue, so I am not sure how - using the current criteria for evaluation - we can include a caption. Including a screen image of the shantih could be done, though I am not sure the inclusion of the captioning is acceptable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any supporting evidence to show any connection, implied or otherwise, between the shantih and the laughter in the credits. It would be pure OR to even make that assumption without a RS. There seems to be a miscommunication about the use of a caption. I was referring to Wikipedia:Captions, and in this instance, using a caption to describe an image of the shantih in the credits, while also describing the laughter in the credits, but not drawing any relationship between the two, is acceptable. In another matter, I believe we have discussed whether or not the sounds occur "as the screen fades to black" and I believe that it does not, however I am willing to take another look. If I recall correctly, the sounds occur as the credits begin. It is true that the sounds do not fade out during the soundtrack, and if I recall, as each song ends in the credits (2 or 3 songs I believe) one can hear the laughter. Still, I'm not sure what this trivia has to do with this article. You obviously find it very important, and I respect your opinion, but we don't write articles from our personal POV. If you can't find RS describing the importance of the shantih (or anything for that matter) in direct relation to the laughter, we can't make that connection. What we can do, is describe the credits in the most neutral way possible, using the film as a primary source, just as we do for the plot section. I'm not entirely clear why we are still arguing over this when WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR are clear on these points. The question is very simple: what reliable sources are you using to verify your information? We don't publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. I am little surprised that this argument about a trivial sound appearing in the credits is still going on after a year of the article languishing without any substantial expansion. There are far more important things to discuss, some of which can be found on Talk:Children_of_Men/Temp, and have still not been added to the article. Let's get to work. —Viriditas | Talk 09:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I don't blame you for having the take you do about laughing children. I tried to poke around NewsBank to see if there was any coverage about the credits to no avail. I think that the general impression of the website was leaning toward the negative. It's no GeoCities, but it still doesn't command authority. Do you think Sandy would OK the website during a FAC process? My personal opinion is that this article should constantly strive to be a Featured Article, especially since it's considered a good Article. Using this website, unfortunately, seems to me as backsliding. Some articles probably wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever seeing FA status, so it would probably be less disputable to include websites like the one in question. I think Children of Men is in terrific shape, despite the oh so many discussion that have taken place here. :) If you want some satisfaction, see how many people viewed this article last month. It's a nifty tool to use to see how many eyes one's work can reach. Arcayne, my suggestion is to keep an eye out for academic studies about Children of Men. These usually take some time to emerge after a film's release, and I have a feeling that scholars would have a lot to say about the film and its presentation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas: Yes, I was mistaken about which caption we were talking about. Thank you for pointing out my mistake (and for not being rude about it). You are right that I feel it is important to include the laughter thing (as the movie is well-enough made that I am sure Cuaron must have had a reason for including it), but, as I said before, I've been here long enough now to know the line between my opinion and proper attribution. After having re-read the discussion at WP Films, I can understand their reasoning for nixing the review site.

As well, I appreciate your proposed compromise of adding a caption to the screenshot of the shantih words at the end of the film. I would be concerned that addinghte bit about the laughter, when it isn't noted anywhere else in the article would be problematic. Thoughts?

Erik: As I noted before, I guess I will simply have to wait longer for something to emerge from retrospective reviews. I guess it was a change int he tone of the discussion that prompted me to reevaluate how I was viewing the problem. I am open to suggestions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Another perspective to take on that review website is to hypothesize that it offered a different interpretation of the children laughing. If the website said it was to imply that Cuaron was making a big joke or something obviously disagreeable to us, we would criticize the reliability of the website more closely. If Film Comment made that claim, we couldn't be as critical. Just a way to bypass any cognitive bias that any of us have had and may have. At the moment, I don't think there is much that can be attributed to the laughter. Cuaron's film assaults the viewer with so much imagery that this detail may have simply gone under the radar in light of the more controversial elements like parallelism to Guantanamo. Lastly, I wanted to share a small piece of advice to all readers that I've learned on Wikipedia -- if you are in disagreement with someone, avoid rapid-fire discussion. Allot some time to think about what the other person said. Wikipedia's not going anywhere. We have the page history available to us. It's not a tragedy if some details are temporarily misrepresented. Just read the other person's comments, edit elsewhere for a while, then come back and share your thoughts. I think that permits discussion to ultimately be more amicable. Just my $0.02. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent advice, Erik, and your presence and perspective is very helpful and appreciated. --MPerel 17:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. When I don't let myself get goaded into arguments, I think I tend to follow that. Thanks again, Erik. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, now that we've settled all this, can someone please revert User:Jandry2's unsourced modifications, and add Erik's source in for the shantih in the hope section, but leave the sound of children laughing out until we have agreed on that matter? Also, someone recently changed "hippy" to "hippie", and as this is basically a UK production of a film set in the UK, the correct spelling of the term is "hippy". —Viriditas | Talk 00:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's now April 11 and still no response or action on this by the original editor who has introduced changes into this article. Viriditas (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the addition on the basis of synthesis. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Viriditas - I wasn't aware you had contacted me expecting me to do something. maybe ask me or let me know next time. And Erik, the proper removal justification would have been RS (as per the discussions here and elsewhere) and not the synthesis of the material ported over explicitly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, it looks like you weren't talking about my citation at all, Erik. My bad - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, consensus on this page and on the Films project is against using the source (and the material) in this article at this time. Some of the material about the theme of hope could be salvaged with one of the reliable sources Eric offers above. Could you please remove the material you added? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's now April 14, 2008, about 12 days after consensus was reached to remove the disputed material. Why is the material still in the article, and why hasn't the original editor followed-up on this issue? Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's now April 21, 2008, and as Arcayne refused to discuss the issue, I went ahead and removed the material and added a new section. Although Arcayne ignored repeated requests for discussion, he has now showed up to edit war again. So there is a clear record of him ignoring discussion and choosing to edit war: [6], [7], Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Shantih, redux

I have not seen the film, but I'm curious to watch it now, after all this discussion. Could someone who has seen it tell me, does the word "Shantih" appear on-screen in readable English? If so, then no citation tag is needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This was previously explained to you on the OR noticeboard. The word appears both as a quote from a character in the film and in as an end title in the closing credits. Some sources discuss the former, while others the latter. Sources are required for all material that is challenged, and this has been challenged many times. There is no guideline or policy that overides WP:V. The OR and RS noticeboard is pretty clear on this. The film credits can be cited as a primary source. I don't know where you got the idea that no citation tag is needed; citation tags are always needed, especially for primary source material. I think you are confusing this with the WP:MOSFILMS guidelines for plot sections, in which case, the exception in that guideline applies directly to this problem, and the exception is a pointer to the dominance of WP:V. Since this particular end title appears at the very end of the film, after the credits, most people will have never seen it, and will not know about it. Providing a source with the exact time the titles appear is a benefit to the reader who wishes to both find and cue the titles. Now, you don't necessarily need to use a source. You could just as well use a note that gives a brief explanation of where the title begins. The purpose of the citation tag is to show the source used for the claim. By not including the citation tags (or note) in this instance, it gives the false impression that the unsourced material is cited to the secondary source citation at the end of the paragraph, which in fact, it isn't. Laura Eldred's comments refer to the term, but it is unclear if she is talking about its use in general in the film by Miriam, or the credits in particular. Erik has kindly provided additional sources that can be added to the article to support just the credits. So the MOSFILMS exception applies again, this time in terms of "details that are unclear or open to interpretation". I'm moving this section up above the RfC, because it seems designed to take attention away from that current discussion, like you did when you wikistalked me to the OR noticeboard page from Talk:Bibliography of Philip K. Dick. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If it does in fact appear in print, unambiguously, then calling it "controversial" doesn't make sense, because it's verifiable by anyone who can read. Explaining that it appears at the very end of the titles should suffice; I doubt you need the exact timestamp, but that's up to you. And your accusation of wikistalking is false. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're confused. Those sources have not yet been added to the article. Erik just provided them a few weeks ago. Hence, the need for a cite needed tag as a placemark to add them. I'm working on it, but Arcayne was supposed to add them three weeks ago. Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Bugs: I was supposed to apparently use the Force to telepathically know what Viriditas wanted me to do. Sorry about that. :)

Actually, the RS and OR Noticeboards are pretty clear on the opposite of your interpretation, actually. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Erik provided the sources for you three weeks ago here. You were asked to remove the unreliable sources you added here. No telepathy required. And, there is no "noticeboard" that contradicts WP:V. If the material is challenged in some way, then sources are needed. This is why WP:MOSFILMS has the exception to the use of citations in the plot. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Avatara

Does "avatara" really mean "saviour," as it says in the article? I thought it was just a term for any manifestation of god in physical form in Hindu religion, and that there wasn't necessarily any saviour concept. Professor Chaos (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a worthy question, and I suggest we both look into it. Of course, the term is sourced directly to a reference. Have you read it? Looking at an online definition of the word, saviour can also mean, "a person who rescues you from harm or danger." Would you say that Hindu deities can or cannot do that? And, why do people worship them? Glancing at the literature, the concept of a saviour seems to be present in Vaishnavism. —Viriditas | Talk 10:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

One of those links is broken, the other is a review of the music. I don't trust it as a reliable source on the meaning of the word. My understanding (not being Hindu myself) is that while many common Hindus believe in many gods, Hinduism officially recognizes only one in many forms. They are called avatars when they take physical form. Savior is typically a Christian idea, since we don't have a repeating cycle of life doctrine. I'm sure it could mean God in the context of the song, and is probably calling for help, but I doubt it's in the way that we call on Christ to save us from our sins. The quote in the article is almost directly from the review. Professor Chaos (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Could you post the broken link here, so I can fix it? And have you looked into the concept of a saviour as it is used in Vaishnavism? I suggest taking a look at this website and comparing it to the wiki article on salvation. That should clear up some of your questions. I could be wrong, but I think part of the problem here is that you are coming at this from a Christian POV, which is fine, but keep in mind that most world religions share many things in common, and their similarities greatly outweigh their differences. If you are concerned with the translation of the Sanskrit word as cited in the review, then we should discuss just that issue rather than trying to highlight differences between Hindus and Christians, which is outside the scope of this article. From what I can tell, there is a substantial body of evidence pointing to the word "saviour" as one translation of "avatara". Ramakrishna writes: "God comes in the world and then disappears again to reappear in a different age at a different place. Whenever He appears, He comes as an Avatara, a Saviour of Man. All these Avataras are different manifestations of the One Spirit. We do not believe that God incarnated on earth only through Jesus; but we heartily accept Christ as one of the Sons of God."[8] That link provides some interesting differences between Christianity on a few key points, such as the need for a saviour for atonement, which is shown to be a Christian concept, replaced in Hinduism with the law of Karma. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that clears up a lot. I was of course coming at this with a Christian point-of-view, but my thought was that probably the reference of avatar meaning savior was also a Christian point-of-view, and that was my concern. Your Ramakrishna quote is enough to convince me, and when I have time later I'll look up that link. Thanks! Professor Chaos (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RevolutionSF link

Arcayne wrote: not sure why you saw the link as dead. Perhaps someone cocked up the cite news template. I've used the old standby ref. Please feel free to convert to template fashion if you wish.[9]

Thanks, but the link you added into the article is not the same link I removed. You can see that for yourself here. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, okay. And you felt the burning need to point this out...why?

And, as a matter of fact, the citation you removed was the same link, once you peel away the cite news template:

• http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.html?id=3444 ¹
• http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=3444 ²

Like I said, something went sideways with the cite news template, it's not as if I was blaming you for it or anything.

What I am curious about, though, it the addition of the bit about when the laughter is heard during the credits ³ seems to be over-describing the matter. "Twer it anyone else, I would simply purge it as bloat, but I am mentioning it here because avoiding the recrimination would be nice for a change. As well, I am fairly sure we don't need to timestamp the instance of the laughter. Perhaps maybe discussing that would have helped. Lastly, describing the children's activity when we cannot see it, qualifying it as playing seems a bit too OR. laughing and shouting is fine. If the reader chooses to read into it that the children were playing, that's up to them. Otherwise, thanks for adding on the cite template for the RevolutionSF link that was re-added. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, please revisit the diff I posted above and the links you added. As a matter of fact, the two links are entirely different, and have nothing to do with the citation template. The link I removed was a dead link as you posted above: (article.html?id=3444) while the new link you added was completely different (article.php?id=3444). To summarize, you questioned me as to why I saw the link was dead (it was dead, you posted the dead link yourself), and you responded by adding a new link to the article. You did not add the same link, you added a completely different one. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand, but you can go farther back in the edit history to see that the link I removed was a dead link, and the link you added was different. Please look very carefully at the two links:

• http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.html?id=3444 ¹
• http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=3444 ²

The former is the dead link I removed, the latter is the new link you added. This is very easy to see. Look at the dead link. It has "article.html?id=3444" at the end. The new link you added has "article.php?id=3444". So you did not revert my change, you added a new link into the article to replace the dead one. And you apparently got the new link from the 404 page that I just saw, where it says that the RevolutionSF website "had some server rejiggering recently that changed our file names". So the old article name was correct until the site changed the name. Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. The link went dead - the server is to blame - we'll have it shot at dawn, and send its various parts to the four corners of England. Not really a very solid reason to delete the entire cite, but there it is. I am not really sure why you are still arguing the point, as I found the correct link and put it in the article. You added the proper templating to it. I thought it was all better now. Do you still see a problem with the citation? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please address why we need to mention the sound of laughing children in the article in the section below this one. I'm not going to argue with you about what the children were doing, but it is beyond obvious that they were playing. That you feel the need to argue about this is beyond me. The viewer is even given a clue in scene 12, "Waiting for Syd", where the quiet of a school playground is remarked upon by the characters: "As the sounds of the playgrounds faded, the despair set in. Very odd, what happens in a world without children's voices." (1:02:43-57) The sound of children playing in the credits draws upon this silence previously remarked in scene 12. We can also draw upon the official screenplay which was published by the studio. I think it is obvious to anyone who listens to this audio in the credits, is that it is the sound of children playing in a playground. I honestly don't know why it is even in the article. Why does the reader need to know this? Using a timestamp is best practice for all uses of film as a primary source, which is exactly how it is being used. I am having trouble understanding why you would be against using a timestamp, as it is encouraged by the {{cite video}} template. The parameter info for the "time" says to state, "Roughly what time, if accessible, a scene occurs with-in a production. Useful for citing specific scenes, quotations or data." I don't see anything wrong with it. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we both know from our previous conversations here and elsewhere that what seems obvious to some is not always that obvious to others; its because of that reason that we cite material, and citing that the children are playing needs that. As for the timestamping, its encouraged but not required, as noting that the laughter happens during the credits pretty much specifies exactly where it the laughter occurs. Therefore, timestamping isn't really useful (also part of the reasoning for using it, according to the template description.

I think I am going to withhold discussing the matter of the children's laughter with you for the time being. In the past, it has led to enormous amounts of wasted time arguing and both of us being blocked for it. Maybe you should just resign yourself to the fact that we are two different ediotrs who maintain very different opinions on this subject, and leave it at that. Anything we could say on the matter would just be rehashing old points and reopening old arguments that are better off left in the past. That the laughter is noted is a good thing, and adds to the breadth of the movie, and maybe even its message. Be happy with that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the term "playing" as a temporary compromise. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw it, and appreciate it. I have removed the cite video template, though, and reinstated the accidentally-removed Closing credits substitution. Maybe hold off on reverting your changes back in until we have found either a satisfactory compromise or a consensus for your changes, please. When reverted, BRD suggests discussion. That means actual discussion, with two or more people discussing matters to arrive at an agreement. I am pretty sure it doesn't mean, 'post in discussion and then revert back'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I offered the above compromise in a good faith, and yet all you do is revert. I think you need to take a step back and actually answer the questions I've asked of you in the below section. You just reverted telling me to take it to the talk page, when you are the one who hasn't been using it. I've compromised and I've discussed the issue. Let's see a little bit of both from you besides the usual edit warring and forcing of "your way" into the article. This is a collaborative website, so please try to work with other editors instead of constantly reverting them. The term "closing credits" is correct, as is the cite video template and the inclusion of the songs. If you disagree, then your response is eagerly awaited in the below section. I hope you would have the courtesy to discuss this issue and not edit war over the issue, as I showed you the same courtesy for almost three weeks, waiting for you to remove the unreliable source you added to the article against consensus. You will notice that I asked you to remove it for three weeks without any response from you. And yet, here you are, edit warring again, whenever I try working on this article. Why is that? Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) My apologies; if you are only seeing me revert, then perhaps my edit summaries and posts here haven't been clear enough. Maybe you could consider that what I am seeing is you posting her and then heading back to the article to revert my alterations out. I rather thought that discussion was actually supposed to be composed of people discussing things until a conclusion was arrived at by all parties. I don't see that occurring just yet - as I am sure that you don't see that, either. My undoing the changes were summarized by a request to continue discussing the matter. I intend to see that discussion actually occur.

As well, I am a little disappointed that I have to ask you to again please focus on the edits, and not the editor. Neither one of us is perfect, and our past interactions with each other have been deplorable; I have no intention of allowing that to happen here.

For my part, I was unaware that you were waiting for me to remove the poor citation; I had actually thought that you had already removed it. Had you let me know you were waiting, I would have been happy to excise it. This article is on my watchlist, but I don;t usually pipe up unless an edit occurs that I disagree with or something that needs discussion. To be clear, I am not simply here to remove your edits. I am here to make a good article.

I appreciate your compromise, as I am sure you appreciate my compromise with the substitution of the closing credits in place of end credits (they are synonymous, and both link to the new article). WE do have a sticking point,and I am yet to be convinced that the timestamping - or even the template itself is necessary here. I read the template, and I see nowhere in there that it is required; if so, why aren't the majority of FA articles also the recipients of time-stamps as well? The template says its useful when the point being cited might be otherwise difficult to find. As it takes place in the closing credits, we kinda know where it is already. Since it lasts throughout the credits, it further removes the useful utility the template function would provide. It feels like overkill. The text tell s us where it is, and there is citation provided that explains the Shantih mentions, and it seems of far more note than a list of songs in the credits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, that isn't a compromise. The section is called closing credits. You haven't explained why you have removed the songs from the closing credits section. Why is the sound of laughing children and the end titles more important than the songs played in the credits? The section on closing credits is about closing credits. I really don't understand your edits or why you have showed up to edit war after remaining silent on this matter for three weeks. The entire closing credits seciton is trivia. I added it as a compromise of good faith to you. Instead, all you do is show up to edit war, again and again. Your rationale for removing the songs and the citation template is totally unjustified. We use the timestamp in the cite video template to help the reader. Why would you want to disinform the reader? There really is a clear pattern here. You disappear from this article for three weeks while I tried to discuss the issue with you, and when I make my very first edit, you show up to revert and edit war. I've put a lot of work into this article, and yet all you do is show up to edit war and argue over pure trivial matters, like the sound effects in the credits, or the use of a timestamp in a citation template. All in all, it's highly disruptive. I would actually like to see you write a new section here, or see you make your first major contribution to this article that does not involve edit warring. How were your recent edits collaborative? How did you seek to preserve the edits of another editor while building upon them and expanding the article? All you did was remove information for no reason. How can you justify that? What is your motivation for removing a citation template? Why would you remove the names of songs that appear in the closing credits? Why is the sound of laughing children and a title that appears at the very end of the film more important than any of these things? And why are you still arguing over such trivial matters? You repeatedly say in your edit summaries that you want to see discussion before reverts, but in fact, you've done the opposite. Who started reverting here, Arcayne? And who continues to revert without discussing the reason for their reverts? If you aren't able to discuss and defend your edits, then I'm going to remove the entire section and place it on talk for discussion. Then, you can spend as much time as you like discussing it while I work on the rest of the article without your edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you changed the section from End Credits to closing credits, Viriditas. End credits would have been just as satisfactory and I don't care much one way or the other.. However, the speculation that children were playing is your interpretation of the sounds. You might consider that marking it as a "temporary" compromise isn't really a compromise at all. Something given with the implied idea that it is only being offered temporarily isn't much of a negotiation.

Again, if you want me to respond to your questions, please understand that you are going to have to address the edits and not the editor. Characterizing my contributions as edit-warring is not going to get me to respond any more favorable to you, and might simply lead to me ignoring your posts. I ask you again to be polite, please.

I am not of the opinion that the template is necessary or useful in this article, Viriditas. The movie, while densely packed with lots of symbolic imagery, is pretty clearly cited. There isn't really a need to have a time-stamp directing us to the closing credits when we have text that explicitly tells us the same thing. We don't really chew the food for the reader. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, what are you talking about? I added the section "end credits" and when I realized that I had given it the wrong name, I changed it to closing credits. So, you are trying to tell me that your compromise consists of reverting to an erroneous version I originally added? I'm really not following you at all, but I am waiting for you to directly respond to my questions. You feel that a citation template is not necessary? That's absurd. You know perfectly well what the sourcing policy is here, and adding a timestamp to the cite video template where the reader can go to find the credits and laughing children is for the benefit of the reader and is good editing. You say it is "pretty clearly cited", yet that particular piece of information is not cited anywhere in the article. You know this, so I have no idea why you would even make that claim. And you still have not explained why you removed the music. I have no idea how you consider unjustified and indefensible blanket reverting as "favorable" behavior. In case you haven't figured it out by now, we are no longer discussing the "playing" of children, as I pulled that out of the article as a gesture of good faith. In return, you reverted my edits and removed citations and content about the songs in the credits. Like I said, if you can't address your questionable edits, I'm going to remove the entire section, and you can discuss it to your heart's content. You say I need consensus for my edits? You say I need to discuss my edits? Great. You will need to do the same in order to add the section back into the article after I remove it. I suggest you compromise instead, but I'm not sure you understand the concept. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, your removal of the citation template is a direct violation of Wikipedia's core policy, verifiability. All material that is challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. You know perfectly well that the "laughter of children" has been challenged for a year on this page and in the talk archives, so your removal of the primary source supporting its inclusion doesn't make any sense. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Arcayne, you seem to have contradicted yourself. At 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC) you claimed that the soundtrack music was just as relevant as the sounds of children laughing and the Shantih. That makes your revert all the more confusing. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Unfortunately, I cannot discuss anything with you when you become uncivil. Considering that vitully every time in the past we have interacted, it has descended into bitter recrimination wherein nothing constructive is accomplished. If you choose to re-frame your requests in a more civil tone (which I know you are capable of doing), then I will respond. Until then, I am not going to reply to any request from you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. You were politely asked to discuss the issue of unreliable sources for three weeks in the above section, and you refused to reply. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)