Wikipedia:Featured article review/V for Vendetta (film)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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 quite
    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 draft
    Because 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 added
    Thanks. 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 wikipedia
    • Go to Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) and hear the 1st 4 notes or you can listen to this (listen (help·info)). 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?
    • 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?
    • 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 (help·info)) 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.
    But things which are common knowledge or self evident do not require sources - to me, that Beethovens fifth is the letter V in morse is well known (and a mnemomic for students of morse) here's a source should you insist. [1] --Mcginnly | Natter 14:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • 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 above
    Yeah, 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 cited
    Okay, 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.
  • 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)

[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)
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)
Think about what I wrote. It's not your hearing I'm commenting on!--P-Chan 07:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC) --P-Chan 07:13, 16 December 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)
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)
  • 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)
    • I removed the last sub-heading, which wasn't really needed. Sandy (Talk) 16:42, 3 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)
  • 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)
(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.
That's a good point. This statement must have been just dropped in by someone after frontpage day. This will be removed, as it is inappropriate.--P-Chan 17:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
More: where does the statement about the first four notes of Beethoven's fifth signifying the letter V come from?
Please check section again for given refs and striked conversations above for this. -- UKPhoenix79 11:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This has been addressed numerous times in the review.--P-Chan 18:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Ref needed on "seems to allude to contemporary 9/11 conspiracy theories" - according to whom?
That statement keeps popping up in the article every few months. I agree. That statement has got to go.--P-Chan 19:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
How do we know the V on Big Ben's clock face was intentional? Is there a source for that, or is that Wiki original research/opinion?
Week statement that I have given up on removing since it keeps on being re-inserted. -- UKPhoenix79 11:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It has been removed.--P-Chan 23:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ref needed on Prothero evoking image of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc. According to whom?
Each time I peek into this article, I find more of what looks like original research, essay, and opinion - please comb through it and thoroughly reference everything; I'll be a Remove next time I check in if everything that looks like someone's opinion isn't referenced and attributed. Sandy (Talk) 00:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sandy. You're one of the few who are looking at this article critically and pointing out specific issues that we can address. If all you're doing is peeking, then I totally encourage you to do it more, as it provides us with an independent set of eyes. Your feedback is very much appreciated, because it leads to better things. Thanks.--P-Chan 00:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Why, thanks, P-Chan - I'm starting to wonder if *everyone else* took all of December off, as I seem to be the only person responding on quite a few FARs :-) On the other hand, considering the volume at the top of this article's FAR, I'm not surprised others aren't looking - I sure didn't when I saw all that verbiage. If I have to read that much back and forth to found out why the Beethoven bit isn't referenced, that's a good reason for referencing Beethoven - it's either OR, or it's not, and a long discussion shouldn't be needed. Sandy (Talk) 06:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Well that's a misrepresentation. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't reference Beethoven. I'm saying that Beethoven is already referenced. In fact, there are two references on that sentence and both of those references are very robust. Therefore, we should not have to address that topic again, because we've addressed it so many times and have resolved it. In any case, Merry Christmas Sandy. --P-Chan 16:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Ooops! Actually, it just occurred to me that you may have been referring to the Beethoven line in the Music Section. If that were the case, then yes, you're right. It wasn't referenced and should have been and is now. Sorry about that... and Merry Christmas still.--P-Chan 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Another look - the WP:WIAFA deficiencies in this article continue to astound me, and I don't understand how it got by FAC (it had 3 Supports and one Oppose - thin).
Comment: Many of the problems you’ve mentioned have been addressed through new changes and through reverting parts of the article back to its original FA state. I stand firmly behind the FA quality of the article at the time of its promotion. That said, the comments mentioned here have improved the article beyond its original state. (Standards seem to constantly be on the increase at Wikipedia, and as those standards increase, so will this article.)

Again, starting from the bottom (and hoping the top is better):

  • Look at the section on DVD release - how is an ad for retail outlets considered of encyclopedic notability ????
      • Best Buy, Circuit City and Target each offered exclusive collectibles with their two-disc special edition copies of V For Vendetta. Best Buy offered an all-out collector's set, which contained four limited-edition art prints, a half scale (1:2) replica of V's mask, and a display box. Circuit City and Target both offered a limited-edition slip sleeve with a lenticular cover and a 64-page excerpt of the graphic novel.
    • The entire section has limited encyclopedic content, borders on advertisement, and could be deleted.
Addressed: The materials concerning the retail outlets has been removed. This section should stay but should be modified to include a description of the actual contents of the DVDs. --P-Chan 05:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (Repetitious, redundant prose:) Even though the film is based on the graphic novel, there are several key differences between the two that make them fundamentally different from one another.
Addressed: --P-Chan 05:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (Redundant prose:) made it the target of both criticism and praise from different sociopolitical groups.
Addressed: --P-Chan 05:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (POV, many? and missing punctuation) Many libertarians, especially at the Mises Institute's LewRockwell.com see the film as a positive depiction
Addressed:--P-Chan 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (Direct quotes need citation:) Justin Raimondo, the libertarian editor of Antiwar.com, praised the film for its sociopolitical self-awareness and saw the film’s success as "helping to fight the cultural rot that the War Party feeds on".
Addressed: For some unknown reason, several of the references to Justin Raimondo and his article were removed after the original FA. --P-Chan 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (Redundant prose:) taking in an estimated total of $25,642,340.
Addressed:--P-Chan 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (Awkward prose:) Despite the film taking place in the UK, the film did not reach number one at the UK box office on opening weekend; ("it" did not reach?)
Addressed: --P-Chan 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (WP:WTA and snake - sentence too long - and, and, and, and:) However, the BBC's Jonathan Ross, a keen fan of the graphic novel, blasted the film, calling it a "woeful, depressing failure" and stating that the "cast of notable and familiar talents such as John Hurt and Stephen Rea stand little chance amid the wreckage of the Wachowski siblings' dismal script and its particularly poor dialogue", and David Denby of the New Yorker described it as "a dunderheaded pop fantasia".
Addressed: Reverted section back to original FA. --P-Chan 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (What is the "moreover" connection?) Moreover, one of the most negative reviews came from Michael Medved, who called the film "V for vile, vicious, vacuous, venal, verminous and vomitaceous." Medved also said that the audience will lose interest about halfway through the film and that it has a confusing ending.
Addressed: Reverted section back to original FA. --P-Chan 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Confused - trying to check on some changes. I questioned the word "Moreover", but a significant criticism by a well-known movie reviewer is now gone? I didn't object to the sentence, which was well sourced - just wondered why it was preceded by "moreover" (which seemed like a WP:WTA) - deleting criticism from a well-known critic doesn't make sense to me.  ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That's an excellent question Sandy. It's always good to ask questions.
The removal of the Michael Medved comment was no accident. Why he was removed, has been discussed a few times in the V for Vendetta (talk), and has been brought up by multiple users. You're probably new to a lot of it, so I'll give you the lowdown.
1) The person: Michael Medved is not a pure film critic. The other critics in the reception section are known primarily for their role as film critics, whereas Michael Medved is seem as a conservative pundit as well. This is the same reason why Ted Baehr is not listed in the reception section, but the political commentary section instead: because there can be a perceived conflict of interest.
2) The review: Michael Medved’s film review is simply not a detailed as the reviews of other critics (or conservative commentators). Plus, there is a very strong political flavor to what he has written.
3) The Balance: Ted Baehr and Don Feder are already listed as social conservative pundits in the political section. Placing Mr. Medved in that section, I think overlaps too much.
However, that last point of course, is just my opinion. I’m open to your opinions on this Sandy. We should have some open dialogue on this. I would like to hear what you have to say.--P-Chan 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to get too much into the politics of Wikipedia (that's usually A Bad Place To Go and Not Good For Blood Pressure), but I was surprised that a blogger of something as biased as a site called antiwar.com was there, and Medved (well known commentator) wasn't - seems unbalanced, and whether these people are known mostly for being film critics doesn't seem relevant, considering the article makes unattributed political commentary (one blogger or writer compares a character to O'Reilly and that makes it into the article - really should be attributed as one writer's opinion, rather than stated as fact). I do consider Medved a film/TV critic - he has branched out from his early days, but I believe he began as a TV critic, concerned about the effects television was having on the pop culture. I was more concerned that I'd have to now re-read the entire article, since there were big changes. I'll do that after Indon is satisfied, but I do see a lot of "political" statements that need better attribution as someone's opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (Awkward sentence, single-sentence paragraph) As of December 2006, V for Vendetta was listed in the top 250 films as voted on by IMDb users, occupying the 116th position.
Addressed: --P-Chan 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (Prose redundancy) With the intention of making the story relevant to today’s audience, the filmmakers included many modern day references as well. ("audiences"? Is modern-day hyphenated? Not sure - ask Tony. Today - that word will become outdated.)
Addressed: --P-Chan 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (uncited, choppy paragraphs)
    • The film's fictional fascist government deliberately used a biological agent against its own people to attain power, paralleling the burning of the Reichstag.
Addressed: Removed through a revert to the original FA. --P-Chan 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Several times during the film, such as Valerie's note, characters make referrences to "America's war" expanding beyond control, presumably an outsized War on Terror. Terrorism and protesting over the course of action to take grew to high levels, resulting in Norsefire developing their ploy to seize power by deploying a biological weapon against Britain itself.
Addressed: Removed through a revert to the original FA. --P-Chan 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Modern fears of totalitarianism" has too many unattributed statements - even though they are cited, they are someone's opinion, and need to say who is the holder of the opinion, unless it's a statement of the filmmaker. Too much POV here. For example, the last paragraph of that section does refer to the filmmaker's statements - the others don't say.
Will address: This will be addressed in the future and will take some time.--P-Chan 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Themes starts with an entire paragraph that looks like someone's opinion, but only one sentence is cited.
Will address: This will be addressed in the future and will take some time.--P-Chan 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Addressed: It has been addressed.--P-Chan 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (uncited) Major theatres decorated the exterior of their buildings with Norsefire flags.
Addressed: This has been removed. --P-Chan 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's as far up as I read - doesn't meet WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I encourage you to keep reading and adding your comments. This is probably one of the most effective ways of maintaining the quality of this article (through a very critical evaluation).--P-Chan 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
P-Chan, I'm glad you're still so hard at work on improvements. I seem to be the only one reviewing: maybe you can urge others to have another look now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
My primary concern right now is satisfying your concerns with this article. I'm sure you can understand from my perspective that when you get to two months into a FARC your main focus becomes compliance with policy. That said, I think I'm keeping an objective eye as to what comments are helpful and appropriate and what comments are not.
I really respect your comments and think you have a good eye as to what constitutes an FAC. Keep up the good work.--P-Chan 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, P-Chan; I'll look in on it again soon. In our defense (with respect to the two months), the first nom was removed (too close to main page date), and later restarted - but it has been a long one :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Look forward to it.--P-Chan 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break
  • Fresh review: as of [3] (Note: please don't response my comments in the middle, because it looks awful, hard to follow and breaks-up my full comments. Please add your responses after my signature.)
  1. The license for Image:V for Vendetta Portman.jpg is not correct from the source. I updated the license which in turns CSD-ed. Please remove it. (ah it has been deleted before I finish this review :-)
  2. The Image:VforVendettaNorsefire.jpg was taken not from the official source, but rather from 3rd party website. Information from that website gives the following terms: All information and images are (unless otherwise noted) © Warner Bros. No other uses are permitted without the prior written consent of owner. Use of the material in violation of the foregoing may result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Credits are not final and dates are subject to change. For more information, please visit their official site. I believe that this has violated its copyright and particularly it fails criterion #8 of the WP:FAIR that the image serves only as a decorative purpose. I have asked the image for a review. Please remove the image from this article.
  3. Image:Vforvendettamov.jpg has a tag for reducing its size, per WP:FAIR. Please reduce the size.
  4. For this source: (Moore, Alan: "V for Vendetta", Chapter 8: The Valley, pg 4, 1998). What is this? A book? paper? Who is the publisher? What's its ISBN id?
  5. In this fact: "The film’s title itself is a reference to "V for Victory".". Why did you take from the following source: (Brice, Jason. "Drugs, Blow Jobs, And Howard", Silverbulletcomicbooks. Retrieved on 4 January 2007.)? Isn't it strange (look the title of the citation)? Shouldn't it be taken from the official website? BTW, I've tride to look the source, but it keeps loading.
  6. The source (A for Anarchy deleted scenes. aforanarchy.com. Retrieved on 8 April 2006.) is a personal website (unauthorized). Therefore, unless the source is replaced by reliable sources, then the following fact:
An anarchist group in New York City has used the film's release to gain publicity for anarchism as a political philosophy. However, the group felt that the film waters down the anarchist message from the original story in order to satisfy mass Hollywood audiences, and instead focuses on destruction without proposing any alternatives.
is an element of original research.
  1. b In this text "..., placing the book firmly in the top sales at Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com.", you must give information about the time. The novel is not always at the top right? When and how long?
  2. b A quibble formatting issue. Why is there an italic and unitalic version of the "V for Vendetta" term in the article? What's the difference between them?
There are also some of my concerns regarding the citations. Some citations do not mention their publisher. There is also a strange used of a source only to put a citation for some terms of "V for ..." in the text. For example, the "V for victory" used this source: Newswatch 1940s. news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved on 21 Nov 2006., but the source is talking about BBC's history during the WWII. There is no any relation with the subject (the movie). For the moment, I vote for remove. — Indon (reply) — 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's roll.

1) You're going to have to go into detail over this point. What is CSD-ed? And what was wrong with the copyright on the picture? Also, why was the picture deleted without any warning?

2) That is one of the most robust pictures in the article. It's certainly not a decoration and why it is not a decoration, is clearly stated in the fair-use description.

3) I can't find the specific passage relating to size. Could you elaborate? What size do you feel comfortable with?

4) Addressed

5) You're going to have to elaborate here as to what level of assurance you're expecting on such a statement. I'm questioning whether this reference needs to be referenced at all.

6) Yes, it's the website of the Anarchist group that said the statement. If Anne Coulter or Cindy Sheehan said a political statement, then I would link to their personal sites as well. What is your opinion?

Addressed: This has now been addressed through the addition of new sources.--P-Chan 05:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1b) Addressed: I've a robust reference to address that point, which contains the Best Sellers date. However, I believe it may be very difficult to find information regarding when the Best Sellers status finished. (If you have any ideas as to how to obtain this info, I'd like to hear them). In any case, I'm going to assume that people know that best seller status is not permanent thing. (Not being sarcastic or anything, but just pointing out the robustness of it's current state)!

2b) Addressed: Those were typos. Feel free to copy-edit any spelling mistakes or typos you see in the article.

3b) In regards to the missing publishers, you can a) flag them so I or someone else can fix them b) be bold and fix them yourself. All the information should be available to you and it would save us both time in the long run. I've went through all of the references recently, but could have certainly missed some info.

4b) In regards to the BBC reference, take a look at the reference again and think about what it's referencing. Despite it not mentioning the film, it's key to the points that it is referencing. (Mind you, I consider that reference a high-level assurance one, as I believe that it may not even be necessary).

--P-Chan 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice response. I understand that this has gone through a long FAR time, but I believe everybody here wants the best work for FAs. I am going to address responses to your comments/questions first, before going to specific issues related to the current article, as of [4] (Note: now I'm going to use numbers, so you don't have to edit my comments.)
  1. Regarding your comments about "feel-free to edit", "be bold", "flag them so someone else can fix them", etc., I believe, you have mistaken the meaning of FAR here. I have flagged them here by raising questions, so that you (or someone else) can fix them. Got it? And the burden of giving full citations, including publishers, is not on the readers' shoulder for FA-level articles, but on the editors.
  2. Re 1), the deleted image falls into category of speedy deletion, because according to the source, the image is licensed with unfree Creative Commons license. Any images/articles that falls into CSD are subjected to be deleted without prior notice.
  3. Re 2), I have asked fair use image review, so please discuss about the image in the image's talk page.
  4. Re 3), please go to the image page and you will read the template.
  5. Re 5), you said "I'm questioning whether this reference needs to be referenced at all." (???) Honestly, I don't understand this recursive statement. Anyway, I read the source for this statement: The film’s title itself is a reference to "V for Victory".[34]. If you read it clearly, then it is not the original source, but rather a citing from Dez Skinn's reply on the Comics International eGroup. Throughout his reply, he did not tell the story that the film refers to "V for Victory", but rather the first story of the original comic creation, when he thought of naming the comic as "V for Victory", but then was decided to be "V for Vendetta". The "V for Victory" was only inside Dez Skinn's head and has never been implemented in the comic. So, there we have a factual error in the article.
  6. Re 6), you have replaced the source, so I'm not going to response your question.
  7. Re 1b), you said, "In any case, I'm going to assume that people know that best seller status is not permanent thing." That's why I asked when and how long? Okay, I've seen the time there, although the prose becomes awkwardly long now with "#" signs.
  8. Regarding BBC's history that they used "V for Victory". Yes you refers for that statement, but there is no relationship between BBC's action of "V for Victory" with the "V for Vendetta" film.
As a conclusion, there are improvements, but there is still WP:OR element. I'm still on remove. — Indon (reply) — 15:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of the role of the reviewer in the FARC/FAR/FA process, as I have evaluated several FA and GA articles myself. At its heart, the role is to objectively review, measure and apply FA criteria and Wikipedia principles to the article to evaluate if it still meets FA standards. It is not to simply order, nor is the role of the editor to simply comply. (To me, the “got it?” statement and tone was mildly offensive). It is to my opinion, that both parties (the evaluators and subject matter experts) are equal partners in addressing these issues, are bound by the same principles, and work toward the same goals.
In retrospect, I believe my 3b) was worded poorly, as I should have simply requested a clarification. That said, if you and I are truly running under the same principles in the FARC, then I would expect you to specifically identify a mistake if you see it and not force a treasure hunt, and if possible, provide actionable recommendations and solutions.
This isn't cold compliance process, nor is it some “gotcha” audit. It’s collaborative, it’s iterative, it’s Wikipedia, so we’re working towards the same goals here.
That’s my 3 cents.--P-Chan 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Re 5) Actually that was vandalism and a rather rude one at that. It has been reverted back now.
The BBC reference was a direct response to another users concerns saying that there was no proof that Beethoven's "Fifth" Symphony's 1st 4 notes resemble the letter “V” in Morse code(···–). Even though it is a logical conclusion known by listing to those notes, the user wanted us to include a citation. This conversation is striked out higher in the page. It is not OR when citations prove each statement logically and clearly :-) -- UKPhoenix79 10:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and that's good that it's sourced, but we don't do "logical conclusions" here, that's why the section is still an OR mess. You've done a great job sourcing the individual statements, but your entire reason for including the paragraph (the opening line and source) do not mention the film at all. It's still OR. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
How can it be Original Research if the research is not done by Wikipedia users but is actually cited and sourced material? Isn't that opposite to what original research means? I managed to cite your objections and show that it was not OR... I think were having a communication problem using the same words but using a different definition for them... -- UKPhoenix79 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, you didn't. Check the source that allegedly references the first sentence of the "Letter V and Number 5" section, and you'll see that it's talking about the graphic novel. Not the movie. Is the section itself better sourced than when I started protesting this two months ago? Yes. Is it still original research based on people's assumptions as to what references what in the movie? Yes. I'm working off of the Wikipedian terminology of original research, I'd hope we're working off of the same definition. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I am okay now with the sources' reliability. Actually the source V for Vendetta review. philipcoppens.com. Retrieved on 21 Nov 2006. is a good one (I've read it), and should be used more in the section, instead of the other two (BBC's history and Allan's comics). So, I'm in the weak oppose now. The section in question ("Letter V and Number 5") needs to have a small citing re-adjustment:
  1. One direct quote below the headline needs a citation.
  2. Similar to the graphic novel, there is repeated reference to the letter “V” and the number five throughout the film.[33] → please replace the source, because the source does not says something about the movie. You can use the philipcoppens or lewrockwell source. Then the following facts, for instance, V was held in cell number "V", V's Zorro-like signature, etc., as long as they are written in the same source, you don't have to put a citation.
— Indon (reply) — 11:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Inchon. I think we've fixed and addressed all of your comments in the FARC. Is there anything outstanding or anything further to add? If there is, please feel free to express it, so it can be addressed. Thanks.--P-Chan 21:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absolutely no Philip Coppens

In response to UKPhoenix's comments regarding rude vandalism, I'd just like to say that I was the one who added that reference. [5]. And despite the "rude" title and the mention of rumours, it is still light-years better than the Philip Coppens article it replaced, which quite frankly is one of the worst cases of plagiarism that I’ve ever seen. If you’ve actually read the article, you should have noticed that it copies straight out of the Wikipedia article, in some cases verbatim. For example:

  • "In the original story, Fate was a Big-Brother-like computer which served as Norsefire's eyes and ears and also helped explain how V could see and hear the things he did."
  • “As November 5 nears, V's various schemes cause chaos and the population grows more and more intolerant and subversive towards the regime.”
  • “Playing Chancellor Sutler was also a complete role reversal for John Hurt, as he played the part of Winston Smith, a victim of the state in the film adaptation of 1984.”
  • “On a nearby rooftop, Evey and chief inspector Finch watch the scene together and hope for a better tomorrow.”
  • “Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission, called V for Vendetta "a vile, pro-terrorist piece of neo-Marxist, left-wing propaganda filled with radical sexual politics and nasty attacks on religion and Christianity". Don Feder, a conservative columnist from Frontpage Magazine has called V for Vendetta "the most explicitly anti-Christian movie to date."

There’s much more, see for yourself: [6] And just so you know, this is no coincidence, as I remember writing many of those statements myself. In fact, there is so much material lifted from current or past V for Vendetta (film) articles that people are going to start thinking we’re copying from Philip Coppens. (Which is just wrong)! Again, this is the absolute worst reference that you could possibly have and I think its addition will harm the credibility and integrity of the article far more than a “rude” word in the references. If this is kept, I don’t see how I can support the article anymore, and I’ll have to vote “remove”. (I’m not kidding about this, there is also my own personal integrity at stake here)!

P.S: Indon, Ukphoneix79 and BadlydrawnJeff, I’m absolutely shocked that none of you caught this, as each of you said that you read that article. Let’s have some dialog on this.--P-Chan 06:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow where did this hostility come from? For one thing I never said I read that I reverted the link since I was the one who added Philip Coppens to begin with. So when BadlydrawnJeff gave the citation for that statement and said that it was referenced from "Drugs, Blow Jobs, And Howard" I knew that was not what I had added and reverted it believing that someone changed the citation to something nonsensical. Look I have always been on your side and backed you up, so why are you attacking me? If I thought you had added this I would have followed the link instead of ignoring it. -- UKPhoenix79 06:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yikes!! Sorry about that dude. I didn't mean to attack you nor did I mean it to sound personally threatening. :( If it's any consolation, it was a global comment and not directed against you.
Again, I'm honestly very sorry about that UK. --P-Chan 07:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No prob man I now your character and that was not typical of it. Your a very cool cat. I was more concerned since I knew that was not like you. -- UKPhoenix79 07:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If you really wrote that statements yourself without source and then Philip Coppens took it from here (though his biography is really something), then I vote absolutely for strong remove, because the article is clearly WP:OR. I'm not questioning your integrity here, but it's a nature of Wikipedia that all editors cannot be trusted; we are all anonimous editors. — Indon (reply) — 08:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
(Statement or statements?) Which one are you referring to here? In any case, I don't understand your point. Just because someone writes a statement(s) without source, doesn't mean that it is original research. It just means that it needs to be sourced, (either that or it was part of the plot, lead, etc). Not sure what you're referring to, but I'm going to assume that you are not questioning my trust as an anonimous editor. If you are, then I'd like to hear why. I'm very very open to what you have to say.--P-Chan 08:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe we are talking about "The letter V and the number 5" section, right? Now based on P.Chan's argument that Philips Coppens took your statements from this article, then the whole section does not have reliable sources to support repeated reference to the letter “V” and the number five throughout the film. — Indon (reply) — 09:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow you want to delete an article about a movie because someone plagiarized information on this cite? Do you think that the "Wizard of Oz" or "Gone with the Wind" should be removed if someone plagiarizes their wikipedia article? I don't think thats a logical move... (Sorry if that sounded sarcastic just making a point) There are many statements one can make about a movie and not need a source. If one was to try to source the plot the article would become too unwieldy to read. I do think that sources serve a great purpose and keep information honest. But there has to be limits to that... just for practicality sakes. Ok I just realized you meant strong remove of the FA and not a delete... sorry about the confusion. Even so P-Chan has given us a link to another article sourcing those statements. -- UKPhoenix79 09:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That’s correct UKphoenix! These are the two references here, both of them from primary to almost primary sources.
-Moore, Alan; David Lloyd (November 2005). V for Vendetta. DC Comics. ISBN 1401207928, (inside cover).-
In this graphic novel, Alan Moore explicitly links both of the statements in his introduction by stating:
“Good Night Home and V for Victory”
“Hello the Voice of Fate and V for Vendetta”
(So obviously, he’s playing with the quote and the title).
The second reference is from the original editor of the Warrior comics - Dez Skinn. Mr. Skinn did have some input in the creation of the comic, so if he says on his site that V for Vendetta was a twist on V for Vendetta, then it should at least have some weight.
I quote Dezz Skin: “Given the cost of Warrior, after years of small option fees it will be nice to get the part royalty for coming up with the name (as a twist on Churchill's V for Victory thus providing the author with a root for the whole V structure) plus commissioning Lloyd and Moore to produce it and editing/publishing the story in the first place!”
[7]
There may be a third reference in existence that directly quotes Alan Moore explicitly saying that Dez Skinn was the originator of the statement. (I will investigate this).
In any case, each of these statements are much more robust than most other sources you’ll see because they are (or are very close to) primary sources. Hope this helps.--P-Chan 09:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Now, this is what is wrong of citing sources. The Moore, Alan; David Lloyd (November 2005). V for Vendetta. DC Comics. ISBN 1401207928 talks about the comics, not the movie. And also for Dezz Skin's comments, it is about a story when the comics was created, not the movie. Correct me if I'm wrong. — Indon (reply) — 09:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You're absolutely right Inchon. They are both referring to the graphic novel. However, the graphic novel is the source material for the film. Both of the mediums share many of the same references: (The titles, the zoro-signs, the room numbers, etc). So unless you assume, each of the repetitions are just coincidences, you should be able to flat out accept that both of the mediums have the same V theme. Yomangani said it best with the analogy that we basically wouldn't expect Wikipedia to demand a new analysis of film on Hamlet, that is seperate from the original play. Again, hope that helps.--P-Chan 09:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do think you are wrong. The film is based on the book, so if a reference to a theme is true for the book it can be assumed will be true for the film unless it is specifically excluded. For example, the Des Skin reference establishes that the title of the book was derived in part from "V for Victory", so unless we assume that although the movie is based on the book, the title itself is original, and just happens to be identical to the title of the book (doesn't sound too likely does it?), then we can quite safely use that reference for the title of the film. The same goes for the use of themes established in the novel - where they are used identically in the movie, demanding separate references that specify "in the film" is not necessary. This isn't original research, it is applying references with some intelligence rather than requiring a verbatim quote for every statement. Yomanganitalk 10:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Huh? So according to that logic the Book titles of the Lord of the Rings "The Fellowship of the Ring" "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" have nothing to do with the movies with the same name? If a movie is based off a book and the title of both are the same wouldn't logic dictate that the reasons for the novel having its name would be the same for the movie? Conversely if they were different there would be a different reason. -- UKPhoenix79 10:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Wohoo, calm down, I have three simultaneous replies here. All right, if you can assume that, then it's fine (this is a review from the person who has never read the book nor seen the movie). I was pointing how the sources are used in the context and during writing the article. When I read the section and then looked into the references, only one source goes to a movie review (excluding Philips Coppens). Even one source talks about BBC's history during WWII. That's the only thing that raises my question. — Indon (reply) — 10:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The film version of V is different in tone and intent than the comic version of V, I think we all agree with that. That point alone makes using an analogy to the comic as a source for the film to be less than useful. I have no problem with the BBC thing sourcing V = 5 or whatever, but it's the entire section that still asserts something that isn't verifiably true about the film. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That point alone makes an analogy to the comic for the film less than useful where they differ, not where ideas are taken wholesale from the book. To take a reference that establishes a motif in the novel on which the film is based, and to disallow the application of that reference when the motif appears in an identical manner in the film is, frankly, silly. This leads us to a point were we can not combine information from more than one source, because, although the connection is clear and logical, we are conducting "original research". Yomanganitalk 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Tone and intent? To build on Yomangani's point, that would only be relevent to much more sujective topics or ones altered between the two mediums. This is not in reference to that, and is referring to instead, V saying 49 V-words in a row and then carving a giant V on the wall. (No subtlty there.)
And with that said... BadlydrawnJeff, if you take a look at our FARC history/Article Talk so far, you'll notice that we've gone through this several times already. In fact, this exact discussion happend a month ago. (Please refer to the following timestamps on this page):
badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yomanganitalk 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
In that instance there was no resolution because you simply didn't respond back (either that or we didn't request a response). In any case, this time, I think we owe it to ourselves to come to a consensus or else we're going to be doing this all over again. Therefore, I'm going to ask you directly: have your V/5 concerns been addressed? And what is your response? And if we have not addressed your concerns, please explain in a clear and exacting way, why they have not been addressed.
Cheers.
PS: Not trying to trap you here, I'm just trying to end this line of agrument so we can address other things in the article.--P-Chan 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this is what you were referring to? No, my concerns haven't been addressed - a massive OR section continues to exist on a featured article, with its main source being something that does not even mention the film. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTE on closing: work is ongoing, please don't close without checking with reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't think of it :). Marskell 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Just so you know, I'll be back on Monday.--P-Chan 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Having finally looked through it I'm a weak remove - I gave it a light copyedit but there are still problems with it:
  • The character listing makes a number of comments that are opinion or original research - connection between Stephen Fry's homosexuality and that of his character, Stephen Rea's marriage to an IRA terrorist, John Hurt's role reversal, the use of stuntmen in the role of V (it's hardly unusual to have stuntmen on a film).
  • The the section on differences between the film and novel is almost entirely unreferenced.
  • The section on themes (not the section on V and the number 5!) is light on references too - for the Count of Monte Cristo and Nazism
If those can be fixed up, I'll be a keep (although it might be good to drag it out a little longer to make sure this is the longest FARC of all time). Yomanganitalk 13:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's competing with Superman for longest running; depending on the ultimate outcomes, we may learn from something from this about the usefulness of extending these reviews indefinitely. <frustrated> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Closure

Based on past experience and from the notice on Badlydrawnjeff’s userpage, there is good chance that Badlyrawnjeff won’t be returning to the FARC process. As I’m looking forward to closure on his issue, I think this unfortunate. However, I also think that this will allow for the process to end more quickly. I would like to propose a solution for closing the FARC process in a timely manner, (for the sake of the FARC process and ourselves.) It’s in three parts.

1. When badlydrawnjeff does come back and if he still has concerns, he can go through some other wiki-arbitration process, if he so chooses. I don’t see how we can move the ball any further than it already has here.

2. Minor issues that have been brought up by Yomangani, Sandy and Indon will be addressed within the remaining timespan of the FARC. (Hopefully, these can be addressed quickly).

3. Issues such as how to reference the “differences between the graphic novel and film”, can be partially dealt with here. However, I imagine that issue will take a while as it sounds much more involving than the other issues. So instead of coming to a complete closure in that area during the FARC, perhaps we could set a clause where I would guarantee to resolve that issue in a satisfactory way… say in the next 2 months or so.

That's my 2 cents. How does that sound?--P-Chan 07:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Close This has gone on far enough and I don't think that the 3rd step is even needed since you have been very good at resolving everything that has come up. I hope you don't mind that I put this at the bottom of the page since I couldn't find what you wrote originally. -- UKPhoenix79 08:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm still here, don't worry. My main issue still hasn't been addressed, regardless, over two months after first raising it. I don't know what you mean by "past experience," either. If "close" means "we leave it as is," that's unacceptable - the section is still problematic. If close means "we take what's above and remove based on the criteria," perhaps that's best to do, given that no one seems to actually want to repair the issue. Perhaps some clarity on this would be helpful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I agree that that section is largely trivial, but I wouldn't defeature on that basis; I'm not sure I agree if it's OR at this point (which would of course be a serious concern). I don't want to rehash what's been said, but what specifically do you feel is insufficiently sourced? Simply observing, for instance, that 49 words begin with V in a scene, is basically an extension of the plot summary and with plot summaries some leeway must be allowed to describe them as primary sources, while avoiding OR "synthesis". I don't see synthesis here. Marskell 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with it being "trivial," and everything to do with the entire basis for the section lacking a source. The section claims a link without anything to back it up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We have (I think - the thing is so long, it's hard to count) four reviewers voting Remove based on OR, and now I'm concerned about POV as well, since the Medved review was not reinstated (per my earlier question). I think we've beaten this to death and given it our best shot in probably the longest review ever. The article structure and referencing is in good shape; it should be delisted, and if the editors/authors feel OR/POV has been addressed, the article should have no problem passing the broader scrutiny of a new FA candidacy. We've done all we can here - delist it and expose it to broader review at FAC. I didn't read the book, didn't see the movie, and think a fresh review from a broader base would sort these issues out. And I pledge not to vote on a new FA candidacy, since structural items that I usually check have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I have addressed your Medved concerns already. Yes, the Medved statement was not reinstated, and I explained to you in 3 points as to why (timestamp P-Chan 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)). 1)He has a clear political orientation and thus his comments should be in the Political Comments section. 2)However, there are quite a few comments of his orientation already in that section. (If you don't think there is enough representation in that area, please don't hesitate to flag it, as there are plenty of comments from conservative pundits that can be added.) 3)Also Medved's review is actually much less detailed than the reviews by other film reviewers.
In regards, to your comments of why Antiwar.com is used in the article, when Medved wasn't... For each statement on O'Reily referenced by Anti-war.com, there is also a reference from Debbie Schlussel, a person from the a very different political orientation. This was done intentionally to show that the right-wing pundit connection was made, not simply by individuals on one end of the political spectrum, but by very different pundits with very different views. If one were to remove the Antiwar.com references and just leave the Debbie Schlussel references, it would look unbalanced.
Have I addressed your concerns regarding the Medved reference and Anti-war.com?
It should be noted that there were no POV concerns in the last FA nomination (in May 2006) and you are the only reviewer that has mentioned POV as a concern in this FARC. I think I've addressed them very well here. To delist an article simply because (quoting Sandy) "the editors/authors feel that the OR/POV has been addressed", is a very bad reason. (That's like arresting someone without changes, and saying that "if you feel you're innocent, you should have no problem going to court.") There should be actionable objections, backed by evidence that can be addressed by the editors, and if they aren't addressed, the the delisting should go forward. However, if there aren't any actionable objections, there aren't any actionable objections. That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
My worries about this article is that editors, which I assume are very familiar of reading the comic and watching the movie, wrote their experiences into textual forms and then tried to fill in the inline citation requirement by searching in the internet of terms they'd wrote; rather than did a research, collecting sources and then combined them into a well-referenced article. I feel that how sources are used is a bit odd. The article still has many OR elements, that is why I'm keeping my remove voice (though it is not strong anymore), and my fresh review above also revelead image problems that should be seen first during FAC. I did some quick reading again, here I state one OR element because it was written not based on a source (this is just a sample):
Norsefire in the film is largely based on present-day fears of an ultra-conservative police state, whereas Norsefire in the original story is based on a fascist regime closer to that of the Nazis. In both stories Norsefire actively participates in the systematic elimination of racial minorities, homosexuals, and political dissidents from society. But whereas the ultra-conservative regime of tomorrow also targets Muslims, the fascist regime of yesterday is explicitly focused on the protection of racial purity. Despite playing down racial elements of the regime, the film retains the Aryan superhero Storm Saxon.
The above paragraph is completely unsourced and has POV statements. I put a statement in boldface that I don't understand how that statement can be an encyclopaedic one. It looks like reading someone's opinion in a blog. — Indon (reply) — 23:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
In regards to your first method… of course editors do that! That’s what happens in tons of articles. (It’s absolutely impossible not to have some bias.) In reviewing the FA and GA’s that I have, I can safely say that references usually pop-up last. (Hit random article, and tell me how many well-sourced articles come up). It would be totally dishonest to deny this.
That said, it would be equally dishonest to say that editors don’t research from the bottom-up, don’t seek out other people’s opinions and don’t challenge their own opinions. That’s what I do and if anyone wants to make a decent article, that’s what they have to do as well. FA 1c/1d are all about that.
Now, with that said, the whole collaborative process is designed to filter out any editor specific bias. This article has gone through 2 peer reviews, a GA and a FA… and now we’re going through a FARC. Anyways, in regards to your Differences quote, I think you’re correct. The section has been heavily modified. You may recall that I mentioned the need learn more about the "#3/Differences section", before moving on. That’s because I think it’s impossible to simply rely on secondary resources for a section like that, and wanted to get some clarification on what the principles for primary source use would be.--P-Chan 05:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not saying that the first method is not allowed, but the latter method is better, because by writing first then trying to find matching references, some assertions are left unsourced. Anyway, I've been watching the article transformation lately and I'm pleased with your work. You used reliable sources and POV statements have been removed. I like the difference between novel and film section now. However, I found an inline image linking in the main article, so I'd removed this assertion. Please use the usual Image and caption format. Only then these statements: "There is even a brief scene (during the Valerie flashback) that contains real-life footage of an anti-Iraq war demonstration, with mention of President George W. Bush. Finally, the film contains reference's to "America's war" and "the war America started" as well as real footage from the Iraq War." are still unsourced, but I am striking my remove vote and happy now the article can be KEPT as FA. You can find a source for that statement above. — Indon (reply) — 16:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand do you want references to the book for the 1st part and the holocaust for the second part? Nazis exterminated people based on their race & religion, Norsefire did the same... Is this OR especially when there are so many references in the entire article stating this? Does every sentence need a reference? Also SandyGeorgia why would this page loose its FA status? Baring the last statement the objections have been resolved every objection had had a source brought up & Parts that have been called OR have been resolved one way or another... Unless specific actionable objections are listed this page should not be desisted but have the FAR removed and be allowed to continue as the FA it is! -- UKPhoenix79 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not true. Every objection has not been resolved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, let me rephrase my question. RS states "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic." Taking the movie itself as a primary source (on this basis, plot summaries are passable in general IMO) editors are allowed to describe scenes. So, again: what in the section is synthetic or interpretive? Surely that the letter "V" is repeatedly use is not "challenged or likely to be challenged." Is the number 5 the kicker? Can we remove it? Marskell 06:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well your leaving me in suspense. What has been missed... Please be specific since, and I am sincere that no sarcasm is meant by this, I cannot read your mind... Please think of this as a court of law and show us specific reasons that you think this article is not Featured Article Worthy. One cannot defend oneself when one does not know the crime one is accused of! -- UKPhoenix79 06:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
What's been missed is that we have an enitre section that asserts something that has nothing to back it up for the subject of the film. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming that was a further exhortation to Jeff and not me, correct? One thing I would say is that the Beethoven bit strikes me as synthetic analysis and should probably go. Marskell 07:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well yes it was sorry for the confusion. Actually the Beethoven bit is a well known fact and is cited as such to the BBC's own website, no conjecture on that part. Hope that helped. -- UKPhoenix79 09:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea that it was chosen to reinforce a theme is a supposition. Marskell 10:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me add/rephrase: the "V" bit is arguably not a theme at all so much as an asthetic that saturates the film. A "theme", classically, unifies and provides (or thoughtfully obscures) meaning. Is there some implicit larger meaning to 49 uses of "V" in the first appearance? No, beyond showing that the writer has a (rather tedious) talent for alliteration. You might call the "V"/5 a motif, but even motifs ought to "speak to something" and this doesn't speak to anything. So what is the point with Beethoven? Are we supposed to be reminded of Churchill or WWII? I don't think so, and even if you do think so it would be OR to assert as much.
This being the case, might we radically shorten this section and insert it as a smaller reference somewhere else? Again, I see this section more as trivial than truly OR and wouldn't remove on the basis of it, but Jeff is concerned and I'd badly like a compromise so I can close this. Marskell 10:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if we can "shorten" it without it continuing to be OR. The assertion lacking any sort of sourcing to back it up is still a problem, albeit not as big as it is now. My only issue with this right now is that we have a section of a featured article that is OR. The OR goes away, and so do my issues, and I no longer care to see this delisted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
To beat the other side of the drum again: Jeff, are you suggesting that the idea that the letter "V" is repeatedly used in the film is OR? "The assertion lacking..." What assertion? Please...just so we know what we're debating. Marskell 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that it being a thematic element is. Read the section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
My head is a little swimmy after two days of looking at the review, so I understand if you are frustrated repeating yourself. But there is no need to be patronizing. I have read the section—three or four times at this point. You have not properly explained your OR concern in terms of what is actually said in the section. "Thematic element"—I have agreed that "theme" is the wrong descriptor. Let's move it out of theme, drop the Winston Churchill allusion (which is implicit OR) and finish. There is nothing OR about observing that the letter "V" occurs regularly in the film. As noted, this in within bounds in treating it as a primary source. Marskell 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Think about how I feel after 2 months. I'm not at all comfortable with the switch that happened recently to say that "oh, the number 5 comes up a lot," but I guess that problem is gone now. I see where the triviality comes into play now, but I suppose that's not a reason to oppose it anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I removed the Churchill bit myself and moved the section to its own level two. Reading again, it is just a random string of examples where one or two would do. But no, I don't think it an oppose basis at this point. Marskell 19:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to be traveling soon, and can no longer keep up with this lengthy FARC. If/when Indon and Yomangani are satisfied, I can be considered a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - there are still two points that I'm unhappy about, but I don't think either of these is enough to strip it of its status:
    • Actor Stephen Rea is also Irish and was once married to Dolours Price, a former member of the IRA, imprisoned for bombing the Old Bailey - unless you can provide a reference from somebody stating that this informed his performance it is irrelevant. It might be OK to feature in an article on Stephen Rea, but not here.
    • Revenge is a central motivation for V and the film makes explicit connections to similar themes in the Count of Monte Cristo. - needs a reference. Yomanganitalk 09:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The talk page says that this is closed..... Can someone officially close this now? -- UKPhoenix79 12:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_review_V_for_Vendetta_%28film%29_archive1_e4a4.html"