Wikipedia:Featured article review/V for Vendetta (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] V for Vendetta (film)
[edit] Review commentary
-
- Messages left at Mailer diablo and Films. Sandy (Talk) 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
As there's been a rather heated war over the "Letter V and the Number 5" section, this needs a review since it appears consensus is to keep the section in. The problem? The section is entire original research, and does not cite any reliable sources to back up the claims. No featured article should have original research in it, period. If the section doesn't stay out, it shouldn't be featured. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: This was originally removed from FAR because it was on the main page the same day. As continued talk page discussion has not resulted in a fix, I'm putting the listing back up. Featured articles should not have original research. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any OR in that paragraph. Can you point to a particular statement that is original research? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The letter V and the number 5
Heck, I'll go through some of them and see.
There is repeated reference to the letter “V”, as both letter and number, throughout the film.General introduction summary statement, doesn't need sources, is justified by further statements that should be or are soured.This would be fine if the rest of it was sourced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
For example, V’s introductory monologue to Evey (above) begins and ends with “V”, has five sentences, and contains 49 words that begin with “V”.Trivial statement, can be deduced from counting the monologue's letters and sentences.Perhaps.
Similar references are made through V's background, choice of words and action.General introduction summary statement, doesn't need sources, is justified by further statements that should be or are soured.Agreed, but a lack of sourcing...The whole point of the section is about this statement and items are shown below listing these instances. Do you want the script?If the script is a source for it, then yes, sourcing the material is a good start. But it may cause problems...- Fixed enough.
V is held in Larkhill cell number “V”.Sourced.Not sourced. Also, there's no indication that this is in fact relevant to the section - it may look obvious, but is it?Its sourced directly for the movie no OR about this statement! It is relevant because he was known as prisoner 5 his identity was lost even to himself (all facts from the movie) He took the latin 5 that was on the door (ie V) as his name, again all from the movie.I see no source in the article for it. Am I missing something?Fact from the comic book, script & movie. Is this disputed somehow? How many references to the script are needed? The reference to the script below should be fine :-)- Fixed enough.
It is revealed that his favorite phrase is “By the power of truth, I, a living man, have conquered the universe”, which is a translation of the 5 "V"ed Latin phrase: “Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.”Needs a source, but is not original research. Should be written as "it is revealed in the film" or whatever to imply that it was indeed revealed in the movie.It is original research, as it's a translation, and I don't know Latin so cannot vouch for the accuracy of the translation, nor can I be sure of its relevance to the section.Not quiteVi veri universum vivus vici found in wikipediaLatin proverbs in wikiquoteThe Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. by Christopher Marlowe
Asside from all of this it is directly quoted from the movie, both the latin and its english translation.EVEY: (She turns back to the carving) I was reading the inscription. What is it?V: A Latin quotation. A motto. "Vi veri veniversum vivus vici." "By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe."EVEY: (She nods) Yes, I suppose you have. This place is the only universe I have right now. Undated Early draftBecause it is a direct quote from the movie I see no reason why this is questioned as OR!First, Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. Second, the article does not state that it's the film's translation, merely that the words translate and we're supposed to take the article's word for it. Third, this could be fixed by saying that the character translates it as such, or that the translation is indeed this, but it needs a source.Script as source addedThanks. Please change the statement in the article, however, that the translation comes from the script.
In a dance with Evey, the song V chooses is number five on his jukebox.Trivial information that can be sourced from the movie itself.Fair enough, maybe.
When V confronts Creedy in his home, he plays Beethoven's "Fifth" Symphony, whose opening notes have a rhythmic pattern that resembles the letter “V” in Morse code (···–).The first part is a trivial fact, and the second part is well-known information that should be very easy to source.Second part, if the second part is well-known (and I was a music minor in college and never noted the morse code similarity), it should be easy to source.The last point is the best but here is everything I have found from just inside wikipediaGo to Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) and hear the 1st 4 notes or you can listen to this (listen ). in the article it even has this section It is commonly asserted that the opening four-note rhythmic motif (short-short-short-long; see above) is repeated throughout the symphony, unifying it. Here are examples taken from the Web: "it is a rhythmic pattern (dit-dit-dit-dot*)... Then you follow the internal link provided and you will see that it has a rhythmic pattern resembling the letter “V” in Morse code (···–)
-
That's fine. Where's the source for this article that says it resmebles it? Hell, where's the source there? Furthermore, where's the evidence that this was intentional? Source for that?
If one goes to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony in popular culture#1940s you will find During World War II the BBC adopted the first four notes as the call sign of the European Service principally because they represent the letter V for Victory in Morse code. The irony that they were composed by a German was not lost on many of the audience or for the more musically educated that it was "Fate knocking on the door" of the Third Reich.
-
That's fine as well. There's still no source for that. I know it, you know it, does random user who isn't educated in music history or British history going to?
or Beethoven's Fifth Symphony in popular culture#1980s In Chapter 8, Book 1 of the graphic novel V For Vendetta, the Symphony is identified as the piece played while title character V commits an assassination. The song is significant because, as is noted by one of the detectives, the initial "da da da dum!" is morse code for the letter "V".
-
And we still assert this without a source. If we want to attach that to the graphic novel, we have to be clear about it.
The best reference is the human ear please (listen ) to the 1st 4 notes. You will also see above in my previous notes that they are rythmically (dit-dit-dit-dot). If you check morse code you will see that ***- is the letter "v".
-
The human ear is most certainly not a reliable source.
BBC News "Next came the realization that the three short notes and one long at the start of Beethoven's Fifth echoed the Morse code for "victory". The V sound on drums immediately became the call sign of all the BBC's European services."
-
Okay, and whenever you want to add that to the article...
-
Added
-
At the moment, the source is still a random website. The following line w/the BBC is fine, but before that is not.
-
- now its both.
The Symphony’s opening was used as a call-sign in the European broadcasts of the BBC during World War II in reference to Winston Churchill’s “V for Victory”.Should be very easy to cite.And yet, months later, it still isn't.Look aboveYeah, it's still not there.now it is
The film’s title itself, is also a reference to “V for Victory”.Might be OR. This sentence is on shaky ground.Yup.Philip Coppens an investigative journalist, author and founder of Frontier Magazine; He was nice enough to do a review.On a self-published website, from the looks of it. Probably not a reliable source unless we attributed the information to him.now citedOkay, but needs attribution in the text.- done
In the battle with Creedy and his men at Victoria station, V forms a “V” with his daggers just before he throws them (shown in picture above).Trivial fact, sourced using a picture.Relevance?
After the battle, when V is mortally wounded, he leaves a “V” signature in his own blood.Trivial fact as above.Fair, although it's an assumption that doesn't belong here.
The destruction of Parliament results in a display of fireworks which form the letter “V”, which is also an inverted red-on-black “A” symbol for anarchy.Cited.No it isn't.Sure it is. It has an internal wikipedia reference. It also used to have an external reference to A for Anarchy, E for Execution for some reason it was removed. Not only that, the v is seen in the trailer on youtube or as an image of the v dominoes here.Okay, but still, not cited.- was internally now also externally... again
- Thanks.
- was internally now also externally... again
Like the Old Bailey and Larkhill, Parliament was destroyed on the fifth of November.Trivial, by definition.Not to an American.In real life Old Bailey and Parliament never have been blown up so I don't know why this would only be known to a Brit! It is a part of the movie and their destructions have been mentioned many times in the article.So think about how someone unfamiliar with the film or with British history is going to interpret this. That was my point here. At best, it's an in-universe statement without context, at worst it's an amazingly inaccurate statement in a featured article.I don't think that in the 1996 movie independence day they would have to reference to the script saying that only a model was blown up and not the actual White House ¯\(°_°)/¯Does it present it as such?- does now
Finally, when Evey first tells V her name, he remarks that it is ironic, since her name (pronounced "eevee") is "vee" said backwards and forwards put together.Trivial fact from the script itself.Complete original research, and the relevance is questionable because there's nothing to indicate it's intentional.This sentence is silly but it is sourced from the script so again it is not OR.It's still OR.Only OR if it is made up from the author not if taken from the script, movie or comic.So which is it?- In all three actually, but its not in the section any more. if someone want to add it just ref it to the script.
-
- I can see only one sentence here that should be removed. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see a number of unsourced, poorly sourced, or entirely useless and trivial information that doesn't belong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hope I helped :-) -- UKPhoenix79 11:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, not really. A start would be to add sources, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- maybe this time? -- UKPhoenix79 09:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've struck the parts that are all set, there are still issues that need to be addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looks all finished :-) -- UKPhoenix79 11:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've struck the parts that are all set, there are still issues that need to be addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- maybe this time? -- UKPhoenix79 09:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, not really. A start would be to add sources, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hope I helped :-) -- UKPhoenix79 11:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see a number of unsourced, poorly sourced, or entirely useless and trivial information that doesn't belong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can see only one sentence here that should be removed. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
- Why mention all of this, though? It just seems like trivia. Has anyone but Wikipedia cared enough to write about the importance of all of these references? --W.marsh 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I second Shikari completely. Of course it's all trivia when taken individually. (how many times did he say "trivial", after all?) But taken together, it becomes a notable theme in the movie. A good list of some of the very subtle (and not-so-subtle) examples, then, just serves to illustrate how carefully the film was put together. (And I have no doubt that someone somewhere has certainly compiled a similar if not much-more-extensive list.) At the same time, if it's all obvious trivia which can be found simply by paying attention, it can hardly be OR. --Arvedui 09:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- So where's the evidence, then? If it's this obvious and notable, where's the reliable sourcing? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not mentioned in any reliable sources because it's so obvious. I think they only need one reference that talks about that mentions the subtle V references, and the rest of the entries they can just leave as they are. Since they've already done that, the section is fine.--Dark Kubrick 00:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Are we allowed to just accept so-called "obvious" things? Some may be somewhat obvious (the "V" with the daggers, I'd even accept cell V), but the morse code/Beethoven thing? Keep in mind, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sentence you're mentioning appears to be cited.--Dark Kubrick 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- We both are, I think. I missed the cites that have been added, but I will note that no one would ever consider "shadowgalaxy.net" reliable for this context. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sentence you're mentioning appears to be cited.--Dark Kubrick 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree with some of your comment Jeff and appreciate the time you are taking to troubleshoot this article. However, I don't think you're taking the time to properly evaluate the situation or the evidence that is being provided. If you read the Shadowgalaxy article you will notice that it mentions that the Beethoven reference is actually from the original graphic novel itself. So instead of simply saying that the refernce is no good, a more constructive criticism would have been to tell us to reference the graphic novel instead of Shadowgalaxy. (With that said, I'm hoping this review will at least, last a few weeks, as it may be hard for me to respond to you promptly.) But in any case, I encourage you to examine more carefully the arguments being presented and make sure you go into more detail when describing your concerns. (Keep up what you are doing though.) --P-Chan 04:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- So why not source the novel? I can't stress this enough - little is sourced in the section, and the few sources there are are not currently reliable. If there were reliable sources and proper attribution, I wouldn't be beating this drum. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Reference the novel directly? That's a great suggestion. What I'm getting at here is that I don't think you are thinking critically about the evidence or situation, because throughout the entire discussion you've repeatedly forgotten about the progress we've made. This won't happen anymore, because from now on you and I will keep a very accurate record of what's been accomplished. For example, we've come to an agreement that the Beethoven statmenet is fine, as long as it references the novel. (I will now start a new section below.)--P-Chan 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- If there has been process made, I'm not seeing it. Being told to use my ear or told that it's obvious when it's not isn't really progress. And no, we haven't come to agreement with the Beethoven statement, really, unless it's worded very differently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Again how can this be OR when the BBC itself says that is the reason it was used? BBC News "Next came the realization that the three short notes and one long at the start of Beethoven's Fifth echoed the Morse code for "victory". The V sound on drums immediately became the call sign of all the BBC's European services." This is a proven fact now, pure and simple, end of story! -- UKPhoenix79 09:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- If there has been process made, I'm not seeing it. Being told to use my ear or told that it's obvious when it's not isn't really progress. And no, we haven't come to agreement with the Beethoven statement, really, unless it's worded very differently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Reference the novel directly? That's a great suggestion. What I'm getting at here is that I don't think you are thinking critically about the evidence or situation, because throughout the entire discussion you've repeatedly forgotten about the progress we've made. This won't happen anymore, because from now on you and I will keep a very accurate record of what's been accomplished. For example, we've come to an agreement that the Beethoven statmenet is fine, as long as it references the novel. (I will now start a new section below.)--P-Chan 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- So why not source the novel? I can't stress this enough - little is sourced in the section, and the few sources there are are not currently reliable. If there were reliable sources and proper attribution, I wouldn't be beating this drum. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with some of your comment Jeff and appreciate the time you are taking to troubleshoot this article. However, I don't think you're taking the time to properly evaluate the situation or the evidence that is being provided. If you read the Shadowgalaxy article you will notice that it mentions that the Beethoven reference is actually from the original graphic novel itself. So instead of simply saying that the refernce is no good, a more constructive criticism would have been to tell us to reference the graphic novel instead of Shadowgalaxy. (With that said, I'm hoping this review will at least, last a few weeks, as it may be hard for me to respond to you promptly.) But in any case, I encourage you to examine more carefully the arguments being presented and make sure you go into more detail when describing your concerns. (Keep up what you are doing though.) --P-Chan 04:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
I agree with the nominator that the section violates WP:NOR, and note that there are stability concerns with the article. Jkelly 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)- Mind telling us in more detail how there may be concerns with the stability of the article, to see if it is actionable? - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was misled by the flurry of main-page-day editing, so please disregard. Jkelly 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Mind telling us in more detail how there may be concerns with the stability of the article, to see if it is actionable? - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I note that at time of promotion this section was included in its entireity and not raised as an issue [2]. I was not aware of this until notification of FARC, so I'll have a look through the whole thing in just a while. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- If I had noticed it then, I would have objected on those grounds. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Step-by-step approach
This is going to be an interesting process. If I'm not mistaken, we have already determined that there is a "V theme" in V for Vendetta. What we have to do now is decide what is in the V/5 theme and what is not. Is this not correct?--P-Chan 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well since the section is cited now I suggest that we close this review. -- UKPhoenix79 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've been busy with other things, I still have questions. Check back in a couple hours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- well this is now referenced so lets close this -- UKPhoenix79 11:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Status?
Have concerns of all reviewers been addressed ? Sandy (Talk) 14:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I feel there are more important concerns now, at closer look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
So I've relooked at this again per request, and the biggest problem areas are dealt with in terms of my original complaint about sourcing. A few new notes as I give it a second closer look over.
- I still don't think we should be referencing shadowgalaxy.net as a source on anything per current standards at WP:V/WP:RS.
- I'd prefer if the things sources to the novel were actually cited as such, but I'm confident it will be dealt with.
- Are all of these relevant to the theme? Are we confident that we've indeed touched on them all? I'm reviewing some of the cites now, and I'm noticing something disturbing: Boudreaux's annotations do not, in fact, source the statement that "Similar to the graphic novel, there is repeated reference to the letter “V” and the number five throughout the film." The source, in fact, does not even mention the film, which was - at best - in development at the time of the most recent cited update. Perhaps some of these notes would be good in the graphic novel section, but I'm a) not at all convinced that these are relevant to here, and, more importantly, b) the notes don't back the entire assertion of the section up! It definitely puts the relevance of the section in question, and makes me question the rest of the sources.
More later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I think the reference to Boudreaux sources the part of the statement that there is repeated reference to the letter V in the graphic novel - it doesn't necessarily have to provide a source for the exact phrasing here, otherwise we'd be left with "The graphic novel repeatedly references the letter 'V'.[ref] So does the film." The case for the film also containing references to "V" needs to be made by the cited examples that follow, so I don't see that as a particular problem. I do notice that some of those examples still aren't cited - some of which might be regarded as obvious, but some which are distinctly dodgy: "fifth of November, the only month containing the letter V" - hardly likely to have choosen 10th June, when 5th November is Guy Fawke's night (or if he had would there be a case for saying "in Roman times June was spelt JVNE, the U later replaced the symbolic V and 10 is twice five"?). There are more than enough examples without this uncited stuff, you don't need to list every occurence to make the point. Yomanganitalk 15:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'd review the article, only this review is too hard to follow with the load of page breakups. LuciferMorgan 01:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to reply to badlydrawnjeffs comments.
- That is a minor gripe that in no way should affect its Featured Article status
- Sounds good
- The whole section is cited and sourced giving support and credence to the sections topic and theme. So like you said earlier "This would be fine if the rest of it was sourced." I am also surprised that you now bring up this extremely helpful website now! This page has everything that I have now managed to find sources for and in fact supports the "V & 5" theme by referencing even more v themes then shown in this section.
- I again move for this nomination to be removed! The nominating factors have now been dealt with. -- UKPhoenix79 08:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I only really noticed the complete irrelevance of the lead-in source then, that's why I broguth it up. The entire section is built up upon a source that doesn't even mention the film, thus causing problems with the relevance and the basis of the section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are OR and referencing (1c). Marskell 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I see there is work going on right now, but there is no consensus to close. Moving to keep it on track. Marskell 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The rest of the article looks good, but having a major section that's based on a source that doesn't once reference the subject combined with other sourcing and relevance issues worries me. My concerns evaporate with either a) a worthwhile, reliable source for the basis of the section, or b) the removal of the section entirely. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Again, I don't see a problem with that source, as it establishes that "V" is used symbolically throughout the novel. The sources that follow need to establish that it is also used in the same way in the film. Where the film follows the book and the symbolism is indicated in the book, then I think it is fair to say that the film is duplicating the symbolism (even unintentionally). I really have a problem with the strained "fifth of November" link though as any thematic use of "V" there is clearly secondary to the symbolism of the destruction of the Houses of Parliament on Guy Fawkes Night. Yomanganitalk 14:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The source is for the novel, not the film. Given the complete difference in tone (the novel was inspired in part by Thatcher, the film having more of a connection to current events), it's entirely reasonable to request a bit more in regards to the theme in this case as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but the source establishes the repetitive use of V in the novel as stated in that sentence, the later sources establish more specific uses in the film. Also, while the tone may differ, I think there is enough of a connection that if a use of V is established as symbolic in the book and it is used identically in the film then we can take it as a symbolic use in the film without demanding a separate film specific citation. What requires citing are uses in the film that don't appear in the book, or uses where nobody has credibly established the intentional symbolic use in the book. Yomanganitalk 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- But at the same time, a closer look at the initial source may in fact map out a pattern in the book, but it's not a pattern that is directly replicated in the film that I know of, nor does our article assert as much. Much of the source has to do with the types of books V has on the shelf, things like that, something the film article doesn't touch. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The symbolism goes deeper in the book, but unless you suppose that all uses of V in the film which duplicate the use in the book are coincidental I can't see your point. We don't claim the film isn't adapted from the book because Alan Moore had his name taken off - whether he admits it or not the book is clearly the source material - so it's not a leap to use a source based on the book for themes that are obviously drawn from it. For example, we wouldn't demand different citations for an analysis of Hamlet's psyche if we were writing about a film production rather than the play (unless the film introduced an new aspect that was not in the play and then only for that particular aspect). We shouldn't demand that level of precision here either. Yomanganitalk 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- But at the same time, a closer look at the initial source may in fact map out a pattern in the book, but it's not a pattern that is directly replicated in the film that I know of, nor does our article assert as much. Much of the source has to do with the types of books V has on the shelf, things like that, something the film article doesn't touch. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but the source establishes the repetitive use of V in the novel as stated in that sentence, the later sources establish more specific uses in the film. Also, while the tone may differ, I think there is enough of a connection that if a use of V is established as symbolic in the book and it is used identically in the film then we can take it as a symbolic use in the film without demanding a separate film specific citation. What requires citing are uses in the film that don't appear in the book, or uses where nobody has credibly established the intentional symbolic use in the book. Yomanganitalk 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The source is for the novel, not the film. Given the complete difference in tone (the novel was inspired in part by Thatcher, the film having more of a connection to current events), it's entirely reasonable to request a bit more in regards to the theme in this case as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "Music" section needs citations. LuciferMorgan 04:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Still FA-level. Wiki-newbie 16:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The references need to be cleaned up, exanded, and to follow a consistent style. Cite web (rather than cite news) was used for news sources, so the news information is obscured (information like author, title, publication date). This occurs on a large number of magazine and news footnotes. Readers need to be able to locate the news articles should the weblinks go dead. There are some footnotes which are just URLs - the information should be completed in a bibliographic style. Last access date should be given on all web sources. Please use a consistent footnote style: some entries have last name, first name on author, while others have first name last name. Sandy (Talk) 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- That's good actionable advice there. We'll get to that in the future for sure.--P-Chan 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Tentative keep, given original concerns are addressed, and article is in good hands that would address/are addressing any subsequent concerns that are being raised slowly. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Closure
This has dragged on far far too long, almost to the point of silliness. Let’s end this soon. There are far more critical areas in this article (AND ELSEWHERE IN LIFE) that deserve our time and attention. :) In fact, I find it quite strange that the two other sections in Themes have not undergone the same level of scrutiny that this one has, even though they contain information that is more controversial. If you want to help me troubleshoot those areas, please do, but let's close this FARC so we can all go home.
As Yomangani has quite insightfully pointed out, the graphic novel reference establishes that there is a V theme in the novel, and since several of the V references in the film have been directly pulled from the novel, I think we can comfortably include those references in the film's V theme. Even if the novel were disregarded, you must admit that there are all sorts of personal signatures from V that are clearly intended to be based on a V theme. Fireworks, signatures, monologues and messages on mirrors... these are no brainers, and to say that all of these happen to be coincidences, certainly would be a stretch credibility.
You're not going to get a 100% level of assurance Jeff, but what you will get is a very robust argument for the V symbolism in the film.--P-Chan 07:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your points as usual are right on the mark. Close -- UKPhoenix79 08:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I still think that's ORish in nature, and I think we should be more careful about that. I also recognize that i'm in the minority here, but whatever the closing party decides, I won't complain about much more. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well if there is anything specific you want to suggest or want clarified feel free to mention them (and I'm going to emphasize the word specific here). Notice how Sandy just wrote a list of specific, actionable comments for us to address. We're working at a very micro-level right now, so clear and actionable communication is key.--P-Chan 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I think I've been very clear and actionable regarding my specific complaint - the section is OR and the source that justifies it does not back up the claims made in the section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well if there is anything specific you want to suggest or want clarified feel free to mention them (and I'm going to emphasize the word specific here). Notice how Sandy just wrote a list of specific, actionable comments for us to address. We're working at a very micro-level right now, so clear and actionable communication is key.--P-Chan 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- (reply after edit conflict) Thanks for the inquiry on my talk page about closing this FARC: Marskell and Joelr31 sometimes close FARCs early if there is clear keep consensus. There's only a weak/tentative keep consensus here, and an outstanding referencing issue of the music section, raised by Lucifer. For example,
- (Is this referenced, or is it opinion/editorializing?) Many of the tracks from the original score evince notes with a discordant, metallic, or fleeting theme, contributing to the generally dystopic atmosphere of the story.
- I also mentioned that the references need to be cleaned up, which hasn't been done yet. I just fixed the last URL, but still see examples of problems. For example
- (This is not a Warner Bros. reference - it's IMDB, which I believe some consider to be a less than reliable source. Your references should accurately indicate the sources.) Warner Bros. (2006) V for Vendetta Unmasked [TV-Special]. United States: Warner Bros.
- (This reference is missing the author - Utichi, Joe. ) Exclusive Interview with Stephen Fry - V for Vendetta. filmfocus.com. Retrieved on 19 April 2006.
- (This reference has an incorrect title). Exclusive Interview with Stephen Fry - V for Vendetta. filmfocus.com. Retrieved on 19 April 2006.
- (This reference is missing the author and the publication date - if you use cite news on all the news sources you're less likely to miss information.) V for Vendetta. Christianitytoday.com. Retrieved on 29 April 2006.
- Please check that all your references are complete and accurate, since almost every one I happened to click on wasn't correct: FAs represent our best work, and readers need to be able to locate the sources if the links go dead in the future. If you have the wrong titles on web references, it will be hard to find the info on a search. IF you don't include author and pub date on news sources, it will be harder to find those sources in hard print.)
-
-
- (Is this referenced, or is it Original research, editorializing, or opinion?) The story retains some anarchist themes from the original story, using them as a means of examining terrorism and state control in a modern context. V for Vendetta sets the Gunpowder Plot as V’s historical inspiration, contributing to his choice of timing, language and appearance. (For example, V adopts the identity of a dead man called Rookwood, named for Ambrose Rokewood; colleagues of this "Rookwood" mentioned in the film are called Percy and Keyes, also the names of Gunpowder Plotters). Revenge is a central motivation for V, the film stressing explicit thematic connections to The Count of Monte Cristo. The film also incorporates the idea of V as the embodiment of an idea rather than an individual, minimizing V's past, and giving the viewer no glimpse of a humanizing face.
-
- I also saw a cite needed tag.
-
- I've never understood badlydrawnjeff's commentary on the article, but then, I haven't seen the movie. The only way I can verify that the article isn't extensive original research/opinion/editorializing is by checking sources in a thoroughly and correctly referenced article. I'll be glad to have another look when the referencing work is completed. If the OR concerns aren't addressed by thorough referencing, I'll be a Remove. Sandy (Talk) 14:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)