Talk:Gattaca/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Use of this article for Rand Paul speech

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/28/watch-rand-paul-uses-gattaca-and-my-left-foot-to-argue-against-scientific-advancement/

Note the direct quotes from this article. Hcobb (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul plagiarism

On October 28, 2013, Rachel Maddow reported that Rand Paul plagiarized sections of the Wikipedia article in his speech in Virginia. Parts of the speech referred to this article when accusing liberals of supporting eugenics. Rand Paul's office has yet to reply. Great50 (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that Rand's remarks should be mentioned in this article. It's minor petty nonsense. And not really a big deal at all. And not such big "plagiarism". It's not necessary. Gabby Merger (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The political controversy caused by a prominent political figure plagiarizing a wikipedia article to push an anti-abortion agenda can certainly be listed as part of the legacy of this film. It being used in political and social culture as an example of eugenics and a demonstration of the consequences such research has on society and sociology also speaks to this. Though this is anecdotal, this movie was part of my college curriculum for Sociology. So this film does have a legacy of being used to analyse social structure and now, thanks to Paul, used as a fear tactic to describe how pro-choice will eventually lead to a Gattaca-like society.-Scoobydunk (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Rachel is a partisan moron. How exactly is borrowing some lines and points from the WP page on "Gattaca" actual "plagiarism"? What is the big deal? I don't like Randy or Rachel. But from what I saw and heard, Rand MENTIONED "Gattaca" and then said the words in question. So? He REFERENCED the movie. So what that he didn't say "errgh, and these words I just said, I got from Wikipedia". I didn't know there was some big copyright to some words or phrases on Wikipedia articles that discuss some past movies.

Some people (like in the sensationalistic "news" media) have nothing else to belly-ache about or make big issues over. Why is this PICAYUNE MINUTIA NON-ISSUE ISSUE MADE INTO SUCH A BIG DEAL? To call this meager crap that Rand Paul did actual "plagiarism", with all the loaded negative inflammatory stuff that that word carries, is itself laughable. What Rand did was one big whatever. Rachel WANTS it to be a candidacy-killer.

Rand is a bit of a buffoon, we know,

but the reason I'm even going off on this Talk page in this way WHEN THIS IS NOT THE FORUM for it (I know that) is because the other editor above made a section over this junk. You honestly think that Rand's remarks should be included in this article? I don't. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The other editor didn't make a section about plagiarism on the article and sections on the talk page don't amount to anything until they are put into the article. It's not the plagiarism that's being discussed in the article, it's the fact that Gattaca was used as a cautionary example of what pro-choice can lead to. So it does have relevance to Gattaca and that's why it's included. You already know that this is not the forum for political rants, so please keep the discussion on topic so it's not disruptive.-Scoobydunk (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

At this point, according to a quick Google News search. there is now over a hundred newspaper articles and counting, that mention the Rand Paul Gattaca Wikipedia plagiarism issue. This would be more coverage of the film than it had received in cumulation over the last ten years. Heck, there was a sketch parodying it on Colbert last night. That alone, ought to be grounds for adding to the article. Mshara1 (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Even if well sourced how does the issue help the reader understand the film? If it was the case that Gattaca had been frequently in debates about eugenics such that there were many scholarly works to analysis how the film portrays it, and thus already part of this discussion, sure, but as best as I can tell, this is a novel argument (what Rand Paul was going for), so presently would be a fringe viewpoint. And thus core issue is not so much eugenics and Gattaca, but Paul taking text nearly direct from the article. That's a meta-aspect about WP, and thus covered better in Paul's article and in the appearances of WP in media. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Liberal Eugenics

After checking the only 2 sources supplied for the statements in the article mentioning "liberal eugenics" I found that neither source uses the term "liberal eugenics". The first source at the start of the article references Gattaca when describing "biopunk" but says nothing about "liberal eugenics" while the second source does talk about Gattaca and its portrayal of eugenics in general, saying nothing about "liberal eugenics". The word "liberal" doesn't appear once in the entire source. I suggest changing these to simply "eugenics" since neither source identifies them as "liberal eugenics". Before making the changes, I'll wait a few days to allow rebuttal.

Here are the sources for your own quick reference:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20080531123956/http://neuroethics.upenn.edu/narrative_perspec.html
• http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/essays/gattaca.htm

-Scoobydunk (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not mention "liberal eugenics," simply because this is a term that is not used in the film (IMO unless someone tied to its production explicitly states that this is the type of eugenics they intended to portray, it should stay out per WP:OR). Ruby 2010/2013 15:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh for pete's sake, do some due diligence. Just deleting stuff really isn’t helpful, especially when it’s correct and precise. I’ve put “liberal eugenics” back in with one of the many readily searchable and accessible scholarly citations. Strebe (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And I've deleted it. The citation you provided, A Genetic Supermarket: Liberal Responses to the Gattaca Objections, does not appear to me to have any scholarly validity. The link is just a PDF, with no indication of where or when it was published or whether it was peer-reviewed. It turns up at Google Scholar as appearing in "Studies in Social and Political Thought, 2002", without any further details such as would usually be given for a scholarly publication, and it has been cited by others a grand total of ONCE.[1] Studies of Social and Political Thought appears to be a journal published by students and faculty at the University of Sussex.[2] There's no indication whether Luis Concepcion was a student or faculty member at US, but a search of the staff at University of Sussex does not turn up anyone named Luis Concepcion.[3] A Google search does not turn up any scholar by that name. [4] This is most likely a student essay; certainly it has not had any impact on the field. In contrast, here is an actual scholarly article [5]; it does not use the term. ScoobyDunk provided two additional scholarly essays above; they do not use the term.
The reason we need solid sourcing before claiming this film is about "liberal eugenics" is that "liberal" is a very loaded word in American political discourse. To use it in this context would not be read as meaning "voluntary eugenics", as our definition has it; it would be taken to mean "eugenics as promoted by liberals". And without solid sourcing we cannot allow that implication to creep into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So no due diligence again. Just delete. Go find some other reference if you don’t like that one. There are plenty, as I already said. You cannot credibly dispute the application of the term “liberal eugenics” to the film as more precise and more accurate than merely eugenics. Go read the Wikipedia article on liberal eugenics. Go read any of: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and a bazillion others, all of which discuss Gattaca in the context of liberal eugenics in order to distinguish it from the philosophically very different eugenics. Anybody who knows anything about the topic recognizes this immediately. Could you please go look something up rather than revert? It’s really irritating to have to compete not only with vandals and naïvety but also those who swoop in to an article who never cared one wit about it until suddenly it makes the news in some frivolous way, only to pretend to be all wise and encylopædic when what they really are heavy-handed, imperious, and lacking any context. Using a correct term shouldn’t even require a citation. Strebe (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree here. The problem is that we have no idea within the context of the film why eugenics were implemented and thus whether it was part of a liberal agenda or not is unfounded (the only people that can say that for sure is the film's showrunners). Because it is a politically charged term, we need a source that specifically calls to the creators' intent here, not an opinion of a third party. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about, “liberal agenda”? Did you even bother to look up liberal eugenics? Is that what this pushback is about? Some ignorant association with American left-wing politics? And, it has nothing to do with what the “showrunners” of the film think or believe. It has to do with critical reception. Strebe (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I second the opinions of the previous 2 editors. I traced the material you linked back to its source which is a journal for interior use at the University of Sussex managed by students and faculty. So I don't consider this to be a strong scholarly source like the one Melanie provided that's listed on JSOTR. It does appear to be a student essay considering how poorly constructed it is, but beyond that, Luis Concepcion is writing a paper on "liberal eugenics" and it is not suitable to use for a plot summary for the movie. His intent is on analyzing a niche aspect of the theoretical social impact of liberal eugenics and not on accurately representing the plot of the movie. I'm not opposed to a separate section that discusses Concepcion's opinion of Gattaca's representation of liberal eugenics but since he's not part of the movie crew or the screenwriter, his interpretation shouldn't be represented in the plot section.-Scoobydunk (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose such a section. Luis Concepcion does not appear to be a expert or respected voice in the field, and there is no reason to give his opinion piece any recognition in this article. To me it is only one step removed from a student term paper. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

To summarize, at this point we have:

•MelanieN, who has decided “she” does not like the term “liberal eugenics” and has decided to enforce her aversion by fiat despite that it is the correct and precise term for the use. I explained that with a little due diligence, she would discover that yes, indeed that is the normal and correct usage specifically as applied to Gattaca. When I supplied a sample showing its normal usage, she declared the sample not scholarly without bothering to poke around more, as if her opinion were more important than the author of the sample, when she is even more anonymous than he is. When I supplied a flurry of other examples, clearly scholarly, she ignored them. She also rationalized her fiat by positing that some people might be confused and think that the term meant something else. She never supplied any reference for this unscientific and unscholarly opinion. She never explained which Wikipedia policy allows her to delete correct terms just because she does not like them and thinks other people might be confused by them. She never explained why an encyclopædia ought to coddle people’s ignorance rather than educate them. She is biased against the term “liberal eugenics”, which she imagines might confuse people, but for some reason her enforcement of the term “eugenics” in its place does not bother her even though the literature distinguishes “liberal eugenics” from “eugenics” precisely because “liberal eugenics” means something more specific that does not carry the same baggage and philosophical implications as “eugenics”. The fact that a lot of people might be confused by the use of the term “eugenics” here does not seem to bother her.

•Ruby, who explains his opposition to the term because it does not appear in the film. The film, of course, is the primary source, whereas Wikipedia, as an encyclopædia, prefers secondary sources to neutralize problems that might stem from the primary source. The film, of course, does not spend a lot of time on the term itself anyway; it shows, not tells.

•MASEM, who does in fact appear confused by the term “liberal eugenics” just as MelanieN hoped someone would be, and who, for some reason, never even followed the Wikipedia link to find out what the conversation was about. “His” objection, being an objection to something else entirely, isn’t actually relevant.

The term has been in the article since this 2005 edit by User:Loremaster and had served very nicely since then until people heretofore uninvolved in the article swooped in to save the day in the wake of the media blitz over the silly Rand Paul affair. Now that we’ve been saved from the emergency of the moment, I propose we go back to the usual due diligence required for an encyclopædic work. I am going to revert deletion of the term “liberal eugenics”, and if this is still a problem for someone, I suggest you open a request for arbitration. I will probably also heavily dilute the vapid Rand Paul section with the literature’s take on abortion vis-à-vis liberal eugenics. Strebe (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Does the movie or anyone directly associated with the movie use the term to describe the type of eugenics in the film? If not, it doesn't matter how "close" the movie's depiction matches the term, as since the term is politically loaded, it should not be used without clear assertion that the film is meant to depict liberal eugenics. That's a POV problem and why not to include the more descriptive term if it is not used explicitly to assume this is what they meant. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry; “liberal eugenics” is not politically loaded—certainly not more than just plain “eugenics”. You made that up. If you didn’t make it up, then cite it. And again, the terminology in the film is irrelevant. Terminology used to describe the film (or anything else in an encyclopædia) comes from critical analysis. As I wrote above. As is clear by Wikipedia’s preference for secondary sources. As is normal and common in the literature. Strebe (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Strebe, I would appreciate it if you're going to summarize that you accurately relay my point and not strawman it. My criticism of your source was mainly that it did not serve as a summary of the plot of Gattaca and is therefore inappropriate to use when describing the plot. Doing a cursory look over the many sources you listed, none of them serve as a summary of Gattaca and, instead, use Gattaca as a reference when describing liberal eugenics. I didn't find a statement that said "Gattaca is about liberal eugenics" or anything remotely similar. Whoever inserted the term "liberal eugenics" did not provide a source that specifically described the movie as being about liberal eugenics. Instead, it seems we have someone who took their understanding of liberal eugenics and then took their knowledge of Gattaca, and merged the two to say that Gattaca displays liberal eugenics, which is against WP:OR. Before we can even really get started, you need to provide a quote that specifically summarizes Gattaca and its use of liberal eugenics. Then we can take all of the quotes you provide and contrast them with the summaries that don't include "liberal eugenics" to make a determination how to best and most inclusively describe Gattaca. I'm not so concerned about the source being scholarly because we're talking about a movie summary. That would be like requesting a scholarly source for a cooking recipe. However, I would prefer if the source actually had relevance to the movie or the film industry or scientific community. Find a quote and then we'll talk.-17:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs)

With apologies, it was Ruby's post I was looking at. More later when I get time. Strebe (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Strebe, before you go re-adding this disputed word to the article, I would remind you that Wikipedia works by consensus. No matter how convinced you are that you are right, you appear to be the only person in this discussion who thinks the word belongs there - vs. at least three who think it doesn't. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Temp page lock proposed

May I suggest a temp page lock. The trolls are sure to start swarming the page. 38.97.88.20 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC) I agree. We all know that the conservative editors will exploit this, tea-partiers are already pretending that the article was changed after the speech instead of admitting the plagiarism. Why must Wikipedia always bow down to the conservatives who want to rewrite facts to suit their own needs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.241.5 (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. I've been on this site for over five years and would be the first to say that, if anything, Wikipedia has a bias towards liberals, not conservatives. But I will keep an eye on this page and make sure it stays as neutral as possible in lieu of what I'm sure is going to be a rush of strong opinion from both parties. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 16:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC) (a happy political independent).

I also came here to suggest a temporary lockdown. There will be enormous interest in the page for the next few days, and partisans of both sides may try to alter it to fit their agendas. We have seen this happening already. At the least, immediate temporary semi-protection is appropriate, as often done when a page is in the news. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Done (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, under Talk:Gattaca). Ruby 2010/2013 16:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I see that this has already been requested. I've removed my request. Ruby 2010/2013 16:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, when I read your "Done" comment I thought it meant you had installed the protection. Actually the request is still pending. Meanwhile the trolling continues. We need this ASAP. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for causing any confusion. Hopefully an admin moves on this fast. Ruby 2010/2013 16:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There! Semi-protection has been added. That should help a lot. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"without attribution"

An editor made an addition pointing out that Sen. Paul quoted directly from this article without attribution (that was the basis for Maddow's accusation of "plagiarism"). Another editor reverted the addition saying that the lack of attribution was "already implied". The first editor re-added it to the article, and I reverted since the addition had reached the point of WP:BRD. This section is for discussing whether or not to call attention to Paul's lack of attribution when he used text from Wikipedia in his speech. At this point I am not sure what I think about that but I want to prevent any edit warring in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the "political references" section doesn't imply that Rand Paul plagiarized from wikipedia. It merely says that he used language nearly verbatim which doesn't speak to whether he gave proper credit or not. That being said, I don't believe whether or not he plagiarized is relevant to the legacy of Gattaca. This isn't a page to condemn a politician for misbehavior, so it doesn't matter if he plagiarized or not. What's more important about this specific paragraph is that Gattaca is being used as a cautionary example by politicians to argue for anti-abortion legislation. Plagiarism has no place in this paragraph and a new paragraph would have to be made if that was to be pursued, but this wouldn't have anything to do with the legacy of Gattaca. If there's an wikipedia article about plagiarism and/or specifically plagiarism from wikipedia, then that article would be a more appropriate place to list Rand Paul's plagiarism.-Scoobydunk (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the phrase "without attribution" is appropriate and is part of the story of how Rand Paul used the Gattaca wikipedia page. I admit this is not about the legacy of Gattaca but to omit the phrase results in an incomplete description of what happened. And it does not detract from the legacy of Gattaca in one way or another. Math-ghamhainn (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the stuff about Rand Paul ought to make clear that he used near-verbatim text from this wikipedia page (as of Oct 28, 2013 at least) in his speech **without attribution**. It is the verbal equivalent of plagiarism and I think it's important to make it clear. I put in the phrase "without attribution" in two different places but the changes were reverted -- once because another editor assumed in good faith that "near-verbatim" implies that, which I don't think it does clearly enough. The other was because I had added it back after it was removed, and these things should be discussed instead of getting into an edit-war. I agree with that so I am putting comments here (still not sure if this is the right place, but here goes). Math-ghamhainn (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm coming around to the conclusion the "plagiarism" angle doesn't belong in this article, but could belong in the Rand Paul article. In fact there is already a section in that article called Rand Paul#Allegations of plagiarism, although its existence and extent are being discussed at the talk page. I think Scoobydunk is right that this article is about the movie Gattaca, and that this incident relates to the legacy or significance of the film, but not necessarily to the use/misuse of the Wikipedia page about it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm also adding this incident to Wikipedia in the media where it clearly fits. But I agree that it doesn't belong on this article, unless this situation grows more and more use the film as an example in political arguments. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Without attribution?? You kidding? Rand paraphrased some words and points from this WP article in some obscure endorsement speech. That's some big "plagiarism"? People read things from sources when they google it, and sometimes don't even remember (necessarily) where they saw those points, and even if they did, this is such big copyrtighted material, that it has to be given such great "attribution", in verbal speeches, with references? Are we serious here? I don't think that Rand's remarks should be mentioned in this article. It's minor petty nonsense. And not really a big deal at all. And not such big "plagiarism". It's not necessary. Gabby Merger (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Rachel is a partisan moron. How exactly is borrowing some lines and points from the WP page on "Gattaca" actual "plagiarism"? What is the big deal? I don't like Randy or Rachel. But from what I saw and heard, Rand MENTIONED "Gattaca" and then said the words in question. So? He REFERENCED the movie. So what that he didn't say "errgh, and these words I just said, I got from Wikipedia". I didn't know there was some big copyright to some words or phrases on Wikipedia articles that discuss some past movies.

Some people (like in the sensationalistic "news" media) have nothing else to belly-ache about or make big issues over. Why is this PICAYUNE MINUTIA NON-ISSUE ISSUE MADE INTO SUCH A BIG DEAL? To call this meager crap that Rand Paul did actual "plagiarism", with all the loaded negative inflammatory stuff that that word carries, is itself laughable. What Rand did was one big whatever. Rachel WANTS it to be a candidacy-killer.

Rand is a bit of a buffoon, we know,

but the reason I'm even going off on this Talk page in this way WHEN THIS IS NOT THE FORUM for it (I know that) is because the other editor above made a section over this junk. You honestly think that Rand's remarks should be included in this article? I don't. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Gabby, please don't copy and paste spam your hyperbole all over the discussion page. This discussion section is specifically about whether or not to note that Rand Paul didn't give proper credit to wikipedia when he plagiarized it during the speech.

Math, I heard your point but whether or not he plagiarized is not relevant to Gattaca or the article. It's just as relevant as noting what color shirt he was wearing, what hair product he used, what kind of slacks he had on, or what shows he had on. All of those would give a more complete picture to the speech he gave, but none of them have any relevance to Gattaca. I suggest you refer to Melanie's comment on how the issue of plagiarism is already being addressed on his own article and if you want to, I'm not opposed to you using a wikilink that goes back to his article for further reading or even a wikilink that directs to the specific section about plagiarism (if that's possible).-Scoobydunk (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Gabby Merger, your comments might be more persuasive if you avoided (i) confident if unsupported assessments of Maddow's (un)intelligence and motivation and Paul's clownishness, (ii) references to Maddow and Paul as "Rachel" and "Randy", (iii) ALL CAPS and boldface. Such temperance might also contribute to that collegial atmosphere which helps the improvement of articles. ¶ Your interpretation, or mine, of what Paul did is less important than that of news outlets; your assessment, or mine, of the significance (if any) of this is again less important than that of news outlets. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well maybe so, but I'm simply emphasizing the silliness of this type of thing. Rand makes a passing remark about Gattaca, and Rachel's main point (not the only, but her primary point) was a supposed "plagiarism" issue, some words so horribly stolen from Wikipedia, about the movie, that should ruin Rand Paul's presidential hopes. If the notion is that (in a neutral sense) Rand referenced the movie's premise about genetic predictions, etc, then ok, I guess. But to make a big deal over Rand borrowing and paraphrasing some points from the WP article about the movie, in my opinion, should NOT be made such a big issue over, or federal case. As Rachel (at this very moment) is still neurotically doing. That was all I was really saying. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Gabby, I share your opinion that the "plagiarism" claims are irrelevant to this article; if anywhere, they belong at the Rand Paul article and (as Masem suggested) at Wikipedia in the media. However, please don't let your enthusiasm (and your disdain for Maddow) overwhelm your grasp of the facts. Senator Rand didn't "paraphrase" this article; he used multiple sentences from it verbatim. And he didn't make a "passing remark" about Gattaca; he devoted several minutes of his speech to it (and its supposed relevance to pro-choice politicians), thus making it worthy of including in this article. And Maddow didn't say anything about this incident "ruining Paul's presidential hopes". Please calm down and stick to what the sources tell us. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Melanie. Ok, let me address what you said, one by one.

Number one, you're right that it went a bit beyond paraphrasing. Some of it was verbatim, true.

Number two, you're right that it was more than just a "passing remark". He went on a bit with it, true enough.

Number three, you're WRONG when you say that Maddow didn't say anything about this incident "ruining Paul's presidential hopes". SHE CERTAINLY BIG TIME DID. Monday night. She went into a whole thing about it...and like how that kind of thing ruined Biden's 1988 presidential run. Not sure how you missed it. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I just re-watched it. (Thank you, Tivo.) Toward the end of her item on Paul she does mention Biden and Herman Cain and then says "What will the fallout be for Rand Paul?" That was it. --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it went beyond a little thing at the end she said. She was saying it even in the promo beforehand, before the actual fuller piece on it. And even in the actual piece. (And even tonight calling it a "scandal"...as if this petty junk rises to that level. Yeah, because Rachel WANTS it to be. And so do Dems and Libs and anti-Pauls want it to be. I don't like either party...so I can see what goes on.) But Rachel on Monday was basically making two points. The point about the whole notion of Paul's of why abortion should be limited or outlawed, on "biological prediction" issues etc... But mainly the point about "plagiarism" and how dare Ron Paul do that, and this will be a big problem for him, in his political runs. It was way more than just some passing point, or side-point of hers. It was actually her very main argument in even bringing up this nonsense in the first place. Paul's supposed "plagiarism". (I guess the reason I see this really as much ado about nothing, is because so what if he verbatim used phrases from Wikipedia article? And? So? Therefore what? He's some bad horrible person for doing that? How does that negate the SUBSTANCE of what he's saying, and relaying...necessarily? His arguments may be still be valid (or not) regardless of stating things word-for-word from some WP article on the movie's premise. Some people don't have time to put things in their own words, or feel the big need to, from things like this, when they're researching things, or getting facts and info on matters. If they like the wording already in a web page they see, then so what? Where did Paul ever say that he actually originated every syllable and phrasing in what he was saying in his speech, and put his authorship name on it, in some official book or something? I mean, there are worse things than this. But I don't want to go into that too much on a page where it's not a place for it. I'm just saying that this petty junk does NOT rise to the level of "scandal" which is what Rachel Mad Cow called it. sighs...) Anyway, the point is that this does not really belong on this article. MAYBE on Ron Paul's own article...that Rachel and her ilk are crowing about this matter, as if it really mattered. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The one thing you keep coming back to is that this doesn;t constitute plagiarism because of the minor nature of either the subject or the source, that being a small political speech or a forgettable wikipedia page. The reason this is considered a scandal at all is that Rand Paul, as a prospective president, should have better morals and shouldn't allow plagiarism of any level (and I understand that this might be the doings of his speech writer and not him personally or intentionally). Maddow is using this as as ethos claim, namely that a man who is willing to plagiarize is not to be trusted in other matters of behavior. And the reason this ethos claim lands is that it is indeed an act of plagiarism. Plagiarism is the uncited use of something someone else wrote. For very small phrases you could rightly assume that the plagiarism is a mistake, but for the amount of sentences that were extremely similar to Wikipedia sentences, it becomes very obvious that this is a statistically believable example of stealing someone else's words. Wikipedia publishes this Gattaca article under a Creative Commons license with requirements of attribution, which means that Rand cannot use any of the sentences of this article intentionally without attributing them out loud, as odious as that may seem in the middle of a speech. And your argument that it shouldn't count as plagiarism because it is such a small transgression is a faulty argument, we don't enforce the law in America based on how minor the transgression was. Stealing just a dollar or just a candy bar or possessing only a gram of an illegal substance, etc... These are all considered crimes and while they might be forgiven in the long run, that is not for us to decide from the sidelines. Plagiarism is a crime just like any other and we don't get to grant him clemency for it on the grounds of it being too tiny to matter... Jamespinkerton55 (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, plagiarism is not a crime. Strebe (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the incident has nothing to directly do with the film, which is what this article is for. There are other pages that better suited for the political fallout, which have been identified above. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement that the incident deserves a sentence here at the movie article, because it has become part of the legacy or influence of the movie. Currently we have a short two-sentence paragraph; that seems to me to be about the right degree of coverage. The remaining question (and the one that launched this discussion) is whether our entry here at the movie article should include the phrase "without attribution", or whether the attribution issue is irrelevant to this article. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the page has enough coverage and relevant information as is, so I concur.-Scoobydunk (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the entry should only mention that Paul used the film as an example during his pro-life speech. I seriously doubt this "scandal" is going to go any farther (this story seems to have short legs). Most importantly, how does mentioning his supposed "plagiarism" help the reader's understanding of the film? Ruby 2010/2013 15:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that if we need to mention it, the question of plaugarizing from WP is secondary to the fact he used the movie for a politcal platform; if Paul's speechwriter had done his homework to avoid the close paraphrase and that the idea he stole it from WP was never there, the fact remains that he still used the movie as a political point on eugenics, so that's what we should limit it to, if we are going to add that. Even on the Wikipedia in the media, I kept the argument to simply state that it was noted it was a close copy of WP's text but did not go as far as questioning if it was without attribution. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I read this as consensus not to mention "without attribution" in this article. Thanks, all. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I watched at least two episodes of The Rachel Maddow Show and noted her in-depth coverage of Sen. Paul's alleged plagiarism and satisfied myself by listening to Sen. Paul himself that he not only used this article to summarize aspects of the movie, but actually quoted passages of significant length without attribution. This is the definition of plagiarism, so I feel satisfied on this point. As to the central point here as to whether Sen. Paul's actions belong in this article, I would vote yes. It is included unobtrusively in the last section, with a title that indicates that it's meta-information, so I think it has been done in the right way. Yes, the incident belongs in Rand Paul as well, and currently does appear there. It's important enough to be mentioned in several articles. As to whether plagiarism is important enough for concern, my answer again is yes. Everyone receiving higher education learns that plagiarism is unethical, especially those being trained as journalists, lawyers, military officers, and politicians. Frequently, educational programs promise instant expulsion to students who plagiarize. It is important to hold our legislative representatives to the highest standards of performance and ethics. Plagiarism is unacceptable, in my opinion, whether Wikipedia is involved or not. David Spector (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow reports Rand Paul plagiarizes the Wikipeida entry for Gattaca

I am still laughing so much at this: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/whered-you-get-your-speech-rand-58113091513 (Gets good at 1:15) Prhartcom (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a change to the article; and if so, what? -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No I doubt it's a suggestion of changing the article itself, though perhaps it would be appropriate to mention the plagiarism somewhere. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Already being discussed in the section above. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Secondary to the above discussion, it may be prudent to keep a close watch on the page. For, as history has shown, once a Wikipedia article makes the news, the vandals will arrive in force.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidents like this are why there's a "Politics" section in List of plagiarism incidents. - Dravecky (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Some notes on lead + plot

Separate from any of the above (regarding the unattributed statement) I was working to try to clean up the lead and the plot, and while corrected by MelaineN regarding the plot, I wanted to note my edits to move the film details about valid/in-valid, the naming of the company, etc. from the lead to the plot, and keep a short sentence in the plot to summarize the film. The lead should still have the overarching themes as I left it. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to be clear that I agree with your initial revision in regards to plot-in-lead issues. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

New York Times

The incident has now made the New York Times.[11] I guess that settles the question of whether it is notable. I am wondering if we should insert the NYT reference into the article in place of some of the weaker references. What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It, along with the primary source (the Maddow video) would be the two to use, but we otherwise don't need to expand the details given. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't really like using video as a source. I was thinking of using the NYT item plus one other, preferably one that focuses on the abortion-eugenics-Gattaca link, rather than the Rand-Paul-cribbed-the-information angle. Of the references listed at the top of this page, I think this one from Salon comes the closest to doing that. I agree that we don't need more detail here, but I do think we could improve the references. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this article should stay focused on the background of the film and its contents. Information about the plagiarism can go onto Rand Paul and/or Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 DavidSSabb (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The two sentences in the article say nothing about plagiarism (since consensus was not to mention that Paul failed to give attribution for his comments). Instead, they document a time when the movie was in the headlines as part of a larger issue. Most articles about films, including this one long before the Paul incident, have a section for "legacy" or "in popular culture" or some other name, documenting the ways in which the film had a lasting impact beyond its creation, exhibition, and critical reaction. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Shorter Gattaca

A terrible film with an absolutely ridiculous premise. Demonstrates that 'noir' is just another word for 'pretentious, unsufferably boring bullshit'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.173.57 (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Please see WP:SOAP and WP:NOT. Wzrd1 (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of the title

I think it is obvious that the title GATTACA is made up by the four nucleobases G, A, T and C of DNA. Others are discussing this as well (a quick search handed me for example [12], [13], [14] and [15]), but I found no more official confirmation of it. Does anyone know more about it, and is it something to write about in the article? --Luen (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It had been covered in the article for quite a while until it was recently removed without comment by User:Masem. I put it back in. - Eureka Lott 14:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's "obvious" but unsourced. I mean, I completely agree that the title is most likely as such to represent the DNA bases, but it is currently original research to say that. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That said, it appears to be said as such in the collector's DVD edition (other facts from that listed here: [16]), so a reference should be added for that to affirm that. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

I've changed the claim that children were "selected by pre-implantation genetic diagnosis" because that is not correct. In the film the child's genetic make-up was created by selecting the preferred characteristics from the parents genome: The doctor (Blair Underwood)'s comment was "he will be yours; just the best of you". Genetic diagnosis is what happens now; the only options there are checking for undesirable traits and (if found) terminating the pregnancy, a much more limited scenario. I substituted the phrase "genetic manipulation" but wasn't able to find a link to describe what was going on. Maybe someone else will have more luck. Swanny18 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Plot rewrite

I have reverted the plot rewrite. I do not see the benefit. It changes the emphases of the narrative. It introduces interpretations. Its mechanics are also not as good. Please discuss here why the plot needs to be rewritten like that. The justification provided was “a lot of details were in the wrong timeline order”, but if that’s true, it suffices to fix what’s there. Strebe (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I re-wrote it because it looked sloppy and amateurish. A lot of details are in the incorrect order. I'm not sure what sections you feel are "interpretations". Perhaps instead of nuking an entire re-write you could've simply touched up what you felt wasn't up to your standards? I won't revert my edits or changes, it seems clear by the edit history that you've claimed ownership over this article. Pardon my intrusion into your fiefdom. Wtbe7560 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Interpretations:

• his parents regret their decision to conceive naturally

• His parents, regretting their decision, use genetic selection to give birth to their next child (from your current "preferred" plot)

Then it’s broken. There is a lot wrong with the narrative.

• Vincent is stuck in menial cleaning jobs

• Both he and his father state in the film that the only work available for in-valids were cleaning jobs

Vincent states he must have cleaned every toilet in the state and the narration states menial jobs, but menial jobs does not mean only cleaning jobs, and we don’t know whether Vincent was specifically constrained to cleaning jobs.

• has to prove his commitment by having his legs sawed off and extended

• Again he states in the film after the procedure that they never questioned his commitment again

That reverses cause and effect. The overt purpose was to make his height match Eugene’s. A consequence of going through with the procedure was to eliminate any doubts about his commitment.

• He gives a sample of his real DNA

• He gives a sample, which Lamar analyzes and the screen shows the Vincent picture.

He gives a urine sample. Presumably they extract residual cells from which to pull DNA from.

• then reveals that he has known who Vincent was for a long time

• This is the only example you gave where you could say it might be an interpretation, as Lamar doesn't expressly say "I knew who you were all along". I can concede this point to you.

• muses about suddenly wanting to stay on Earth.

• He comments on the irony of spending his entire life trying to get to space and then as he's about to leave he finds a reason to stay. I'm not seeing how this is an "interpretation".

The purpose of his statement seems to be that, while suddenly wistful about leaving, he can also think of it as going home after all. The emphasis you gave is an interpretation and in any case he does not say he “wants” to stay.

Look, I get it. This is your baby and you don't want anyone re-tooling it. I apologize for editing your article, won't happen again. Wtbe7560 (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don’t accept your apology because that has nothing to do what this is about. You, and anyone, are welcome to improve the article. Just understand that people already involved are not necessarily the dimwits you might imagine them to be. If you’re going to make sweeping changes, consider getting consensus on what the problems are before proceeding—in any article. Strebe (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning “Perhaps instead of nuking an entire re-write”: Perhaps instead of nuking an entire consensus plot summary you could have…? Sloppy and amateurish seems an odd complaint for someone who uses comma splices, semicolons in place of colons, and weak conjunctive “and”s. Even so, it was a good effort and would have been fine if it were replacing something people agreed is worse.

Strebe (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In writing in an out-of-universe plot summary as per WP:WAF, we are allowed to mess up order for conciseness (which, btw, still needs to be done here - plots should be 700 words). --MASEM (t) 03:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't care if someone wants to re-write the plot as long as it is complete and concise and avoids audience interpretation (such as problems noted in the list above). Though it's true the guidelines suggest 700 words, this film is one I wouldn't tag if it went a tiny bit over (800 tops, but really I think it can be done easily on the 700 word guideline). My fellow film project editors frequently forget that the 400-700 word thing is not a strict rule in the sense that all plots must fall in that range. There are exceptions on both ends of the spectrum.

However, one thing I absolutely hate in wiki plot summaries is "film does this" language. In the case of this reverted plot the prime example would be the opening sentence which started with "the Movie opens". Blegh. Most of the time such language is not only unnecessary but 1) adds an amateurish tone to the writing and 2) adds unneeded length that could be better used describing narrative action to clarify the plot. As with all things wiki, there are exceptions where such language can be helpful but this film isn't one of them.

SO yeah, I don't care one way or another if someone wants to rewrite the plot; I'm a plot summary junky myself and if time permits I might take a stab at it myself. But for the love of pete stop with "the movie opens with a montage of" and "the main character does this thing as the screen fades to black and the credits roll" type stuff. It's pedantic (almost worse that "he is the main protagonist of the film" ad nauseum in cast lists) and it smacks of trying to recreate the experience of seeing the film, something we are expressly told not to do in writing about fiction on the site. The point of the plot summary is to lend support to other sections of the article. Millahnna (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Dubious use of our editorial time to go through this, but alright...

Strebe, what's wrong with it is a run-on sentence; the variation on that sentence that you are fighting to preserve has three separate clauses, plus a parenthetical, which is furthermore placed between two dependent clauses that begin with null structures (that is, they have omitted verb phrases). The whole sentence is immensely awkward as a result of this convoluted syntax, to the point where the beginning barely seems semantically consistent with the end. What's more, you haven't provided any reason for your most recent revert; your first revert cited formatting in the m-dash (which was added because it would have broken up the two principle concepts of the run-on) which is a fair enoughc omplaint, though I would have just corrected it myself instead of reverting with that being your only (presented) reasoning. In any event, I corrected the M-dash and you've reverted again, this time without providing solid policy rationale, only insisting (vaguely) that the version you prefer is better. Reverting a second time without rationale after the issue of your first revert was addressed is close to edit warring, and in any event is certainly not in the spirit of WP:BRD. But that procedural observation aside, do you have an argument why syntax that would eliminate a run-on sentence should not be employed here? Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 12:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not a run-on sentence by any accepted definition of a run-on sentence. It is just long. The parenthetical is simple and normal, but I do agree the null structure after the parenthetical renders the entire sentence loose. My complaint about the M-dash wasn’t about your formatting; it was about using it at all there. It’s generally agreed by writers and editors to be overused, and it looks particularly awkward to me in that circumstance. I think a simple “who is” improves the sentence, but we can try other ways as well with the usual caveat about terseness. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You are categorically incorrect that it is not a run-on sentence by the accepted standard definition of that phrase going back to its inception as a grammatical term; there are two sequential dependent clauses without a conjunction. Further, until you added "who is", neither had its relative pronoun either. All of that said, I think that the current version is a reasonable middle-ground solution. It is still a run-on, but it is now syntactically explicit enough that it reads in a fairly straight-forward fashion.

Just to clarify as to your stance on the "accepted definition" issue, a run-on sentence is not just any overly-long sentence. Appropriate over-all sentence length is subjective and people will often disagree as to what is pushing the upper bounds with regard to statements that need to be broken up. But a run-on sentence is a different syntactic issue, and is a matter of descriptive and not prescriptive grammar, meaning that it can cause actual ambiguity or confusion in meaning. A run-on sentence can actually be quite short and another sentence can be twelve times longer without being a run-on sentence at all, provided it uses prepositional phrases, and subordinating syntax. The thing is, the nature of the name is such that it is sometimes assumed to be a label for any sentence that is overly-long to the point of being awkward. That's not the actual meaning however, which is why I Wikilinked you our article on the subject.

But that issue aside, the current version looks fine to me. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 11:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You both sound like jerks. Simply use clear and concise English, There are readers here whose native language is not English. This alone is reason enough to reject long and ambiguous sentences.

Is Gattaca also utopian?

So I created this new category: Category:Utopian films and I'm wondering whether or not to add Gattaca. The movie's tending towards utopia but it appears to be split in that matter (in the same way Biopunk is split into a rather utopian [the DIY-science movement] and a rather dystopian [the science fiction subgenre] movement). Basically it's "Genetics as Utopia & Eugenics as Dystopia".
Do you think it's appropriate to add that movie to that category? --Fixuture (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Have sources referred to it as such? DonIago (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There's many sources asking the same question, such as: https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/gattaca-utopia-or-dystopia/ https://books.google.de/books?id=giTiGwEICJMC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=gattaca+utopia

http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/4353.pdf calls it a pseudo-Utopia and also notes that "Gattaca may be seen as a utopian space".

http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/colloquy/download/colloquy_issue_fourteen_december_2007/atkinson.pdf says "In Gattaca, the utopianism of a genetically determined future is reproduced in ", " in Gattaca, utopia is embodied in a society in which there can be "no other place"" and "In Gattaca, the utopian state is realised incrementally through choice and exclusion"

There also many other sources being relevant here which are notable. However the issue is that it always (and rightfully) gets called an Utopia in the notion of a split Utopia - one that is generally an Utopia but has dystopian features (at least for the "invalids") or might not be the Utopia it seems to be.

So the question is whether or not this would be enought to add it to the category.--Fixuture (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Second swimming race: who drowns?

The plot summary currently claims that ″Anton turns back and begins to drown, but Vincent rescues him″. I think it's actually the other way around: This time, Vincent begins to drown and and Anton rescues him. Opinions? --EnOreg (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I can rewatch if necessary, but not currently. Give me a ping sometime after 7 pm EST if you'd like me to see what I can see. DonIago (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The plot summary is clearly correct as written. Strebe (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I re-watched the scene and retract my objection. It is indeed again Anton drowning and Vincent rescuing him. --EnOreg (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)