Talk:Children of Men/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

Contents 1 Another Citation Problem 2 Cast section removal 3 Cite template question 4 Childhood's End Reference 5 Difference between movie and film? 6 WP:LEAD 6.1 Addition to Themes 6.2 Themes in the lead 7 Synopsis v. Plot 8 Arbeit Macht Frei 9 Revert of lead 10 Lead paragraph layout 11 Archiving 12 Lead Paragraph Layout, Take 2 13 Explanation for revert requested 14 Synopsis heading 15 Theo's death removed? 16 Unmarked reverts and disruptive editing 17 EditWarring Revisited 18 Changes Between 2006 and 2027 19 Music in the film

Another Citation Problem

From the Themes section: "According to Cuarón, the title of P.D. James' book (The Children of Men) is a Catholic allegory derived from a bible quote". The citation appears int he reference section as #33. However, that appears to be empty (the cite simply refering to 'Metroactive'). Maybe this refers to a source I could not find. In all of the references listed (and some of them appear to be dead or unrelated), I could not find a single reference to the word 'allegory' in any of them. Maybe I missed it. If someone could point it out, that would be great. I wouldn't presume to remove the word until the link issue is squared away.Arcayne 15:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the "Metroactive" link. The original reference was earlier in the Themes section a few dozen revisions ago, but it was replaced with something else. I've brought it back in. Please point out anything that seems dead or nonworking, and I'll see if I can fix them. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed. Excellent, expeditious work! I will check through the references today whilst at work.Arcayne 15:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast section removal

There used to be a section that listed the principal cast members, but it seems to be gone now. I was merely wondering if there was a reason for its removal, or if it will be reinstated? Just curious; I wanted to check on a certain minor actor, but was too lazy to nip over to IMDb. That'll show me, heh. María: (habla ~ cosas) 15:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggested the removal because the primary characters were already embedded in the Plot section. Most FA-class film articles don't really have a cast list, with the exception of franchise films (whose characters have their own articles) and something like Dog Day Afternoon. It didn't seem necessary to list all the minor characters, as it has little encyclopedic value. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like a list either, but we have enough cast content in the production section to move it to its own prose section. —Viriditas | Talk 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a likely solution. I was looking for a reference to Charlie Hunnam, who plays Patric, and although he's not a major character, I think those who have seen the film would agree that he plays a very important part in the story as a whole. However, he isn't mentioned in the plot or production section --which makes sense for space constraint. I'm sure there are others in the cast who fall into the same category and deserve at least a mention. PS: good to see you're still fighting the good fight, Viriditas. :) María: (habla ~ cosas) 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Children of Men/Temp could be used to develop the cast section. I will import the content. —Viriditas | Talk 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a cast section and it has been reverted. I believe a cast section should be added undoubtedly. melding all the info into production balloons the Production section up instead of keeping it into multiple concise categories, especially on a large article such as this. for a smaller article/film i would regularly have no qualms about merging cast in production. I would like to hear more arguments for for/against its removal. thanks. --Beanssnaeb 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the addition of your cast section. Arcayne reverted your addition, but myself and another editor added it back. So far, Arcayne has not explained the reasons behind his edits. —Viriditas | Talk 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cite template question

I'd like to get a consensus for this article regarding something. With the Cite news and Cite web templates, the author can be filled out in two ways. One is with the author= attribute. The other is with the first= and last= attributes. The latter will format it to be "Smith, John", where author= formats it as "John Smith". I'd like to standardize the templates for the references in this article, and I would prefer to use the author= attribute. I say this because when it comes to using the coauthors= attribute, the format seems confusing. For example, first=John | last=Smith | coauthors=Jane Doe will produce Smith, John, Jane Doe, and formatting it as first=John | last=Smith | coauthors=Doe, Jane will produce Smith, John, Doe, Jane, which is too confusing. (By the way, first= and last= attributes can be used interchangeably and still produce "last, first".) Thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still learning about scripting and templates, so I yield to your superior knowledge on the subject.Arcayne 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's just that author=John Smith | coauthors=Jane Doe produces John Smith, Jane Doe, which is more easily read than what I mentioned before. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to see last names first, as that is helpful when doing research, looking at sources, and using standard citation guidelines. I don't think the coauthor format is confusing, and is rarely used in film articles due to the nature of reviews and commentary. —Viriditas | Talk 10:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Childhood's End Reference

I have ported over an uncited post that I removed from the article (placed in the Themes section). It doesn't appear to be nonsense or vandalism, and I thought it would be okay to put it here, until User:Ppayne can properly cite the reference. I am not as familiar with this Clarke work.

Added by User:Ppayne)

The story has strong simitarities to Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End, a novel about mankind going on to a higher plane of evolution, resulting in the end of fertility in the current generation of humans.

-Arcayne 15:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I Googled briefly for a connection between the two, but couldn't find any sources outside of comparisons made in forums. Maybe someone else would have better luck. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i did, too. No luck. Of course, Ppayne might have something more than observation to back up his post, so I figured we'd give the lad/lass a chance to square it away, proper-like. (he said, feeling all piratey).Arcayne 15:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Difference between movie and film?

Wasn't there a section about the difference between the two works? Why was it removed? --72.202.150.92 17:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The differences have been worked into other sections, such as the first paragraph of the Themes section. Seeing as the director did not intend to adapt anything but the premise from the novel, it's needless to create a section to compare the two sources. Hope that's understandable. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Arcayne, could you please read WP:LEAD? You seem to be editing in a disruptive manner again. I added a third paragraph according to WP:LEAD and you removed it with the edit summary, "rm OR, redundant info - better referred to in Production and Reception areas, with citation." You also added a small non-notable detail that does not appear in the article. The sense of realism is the most noteworthy aspect of the film, and seems to be the consensus of the reviews in the article and in general. This realism was made possible with production techniques explained in the article. There is no original research, here. —Viriditas | Talk 20:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, you could have done just as well to leave out "editing in a disruptive manner again". Every editor has something to learn, and the dredging is unnecessary. I'm sure when he reviews WP:LEAD, he'll understand how the lead paragraphs are supposed to be constructed -- as a concise overview of the article itself. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne's tendentious editing behavior and penchant for revert wars is the epitome of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. —Viriditas | Talk 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am editing to make the peace better. In every instance where you have carried on for days, breaking 3RR seeminglyu at will, when a consensus has been reached within the article, I have gone with the group. When I have been wrong, I have admitted so. Every time I make an edit, you take special care to endlessly revert my text, most recently - text that you asked for help on. You talk about edit wars and trolls, but you are the only one consistently reverting my text, and you are the one continually using uncivil language. You don't seem to listen to editors asking you to stand down and work with others, and you don't respect their opinions enough to wait for an outside opinion. Those are warning bells, sir. What is it going to take to get you to stop being so abrasive? Arcayne 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the absurd, disruptive behavior and wild claims. Edit warring does not "make the peace better". Use the talk page to justify your reverts. —Viriditas | Talk 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read WP:LEAD, and created the better beginnings of a lead paragraph than were there before. I have no problem with him adding to what I've put there, and I encourage you to please learn to share your toys.Arcayne 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You reverted a paragraph that summarizes notable aspects of the article per WP:LEAD and replaced it with one that doesn't. You added an absurd edit summary asking me to work with others, while writing "I have no problem with him adding to what I've put there" above. Arcayne, I view your behavior as disruptive. Please stop edit warring over Wikipedia policies and guidelines and help contribute to the improvement of this article. —Viriditas | Talk 21:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely what I am doing - contributing to the article. Simply because you do not agree with what others add to the article doesn't make them wrong, or trollish, or edit warriors. No one else has been able to add a single thing to the article without you reverting it at least once. An edit war is started by more than one person. Please stop being a flash point. I am done arguing with you. Please do not address me again.Arcayne 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Drop it — both of you. What's past is past. You've both argued your cases literally dozens of times, and you're not going to get anywhere. Focus on the task at hand. The tension does not help in the editing process at all. Let bygones be bygones. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about the past anymore. I am focusing on the article as it is now.Arcayne 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If either of you persist on making any further comments toward each other, I will revert. This talk page is meant to discuss how to improve the respective article. Don't try to have the last word — no one cares, least of all me. If you want to debate each other's merits, find another forum to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing the current edits made by Arcayne. He removed my summation of the facts in the article and replaced it with his pet theory of the "shantih", couched in terms of, "maintaining a spiritual and metaphorical tone from the opening sequence to the last moments of the film." That statement is not supported and is original research. —Viriditas | Talk 21:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that we're back in topic, I concur with Viriditas about mention of the film's conclusion not belonging in the lead. We are supposed to take the entire content of the article and summarize it into at most three lead paragraphs (which is the maximum I've seen for all FA-class film articles). The ending is not as pertinent as the other themes presented in the film. Overall topics should be mentioned -- religion, anti-authority, and what-have-you. In addition, I removed the Scriptor Award mention because the article does not mention the win for the camera work, but rather the adapted screenplay. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I suggest that if we are going to summarize the reception of the film, then we should expand the Reception section with further detail. The section should lean away from themes because many of these have already been addressed in the appropriate section. However, opinions on whether or not the themes were too heavy, or if the cinematography was over the top, should be mentioned. I'm not an expert on writing Reception sections, but I think we should aim for a balance, mostly toward the positive end due to how the film has been received overall based on Rotten Tomatoes. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't actually adressing the Shantih stuff with the lead. I was referring to cited commentary that discusses how the movie was contructed. Specifically, I drew upon the following:

• "Watch for the scene at the end that points the way." (here)
• "At one point in Children of Men, Miriam comments how the voices of children are what keep the world from tipping into self-destruction. That sentiment is borne out precisely and perfectly in Cuarón's final scenes." (and here)

The point I was illustrating in the improved lead sentences refers to both reviewers' beliefs (not mine) that from opening shot until the lights come up, Cuaron was still creating a movie. The Shantih is not part of this (and isn't going to be mentioned by me again until some reviewer says something about it); after the independent reviewer weighed in with his measured opinion, I respected it and the matter was set aside as far as I was concerned. Not once did I bring it up again, and am not going to discuss it again. As the lead paragraphs are supposed to give an overview of the article, the statement I added, "maintaining a spiritual and metaphorical tone from the opening sequence to the last moments of the film" is truthful, and noting the thematic, religious (and allegorical) issues presented by the film. As this statement is drawn from cited (and immediately available sources) and is indeed an overview of the thematic components of the film, I think they contribute to the article.Arcayne 00:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The information is not included in the article, so it cannot qualify as part of the overview until it is so. You're supposed to reference what's already in the article to put together lead paragraphs. So if you included the thematic statements in the Themes section, then it may be appropriate to reference what you had earlier. With three lead paragraphs, though, space is somewhat tight; hence some discussion as to what should be covered in the lead. (So much for retiring for the night.) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I can work up something in Themes about it tonight or early tomorrow. Any idea where I should insert the info about it? I think that the proposed Lead statement mentioned above is general enough to act as overview without getting into specifics. The specifics will go into the Themes section. I also wanted to mention that I used the word slightly to describe in an overall way how - as detailed in the production section, the film was an anti-BladeRunner, in that the tech was just slightly paying a nod to the future, while maintaining the here and now. Sorry if that was somehow confusing.Arcayne 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You could have a paragraph before the "Shantih" one that describes children as a theme (use this citation, too, for added detail) and end with the laughing children being a relevant observation, then the next paragraph, the "Shantih" paragraph, would wrap up the thematic ending that the director provided. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll work at wrapping it up with a nice bow.Arcayne 00:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Themes

I've kind of copy-edited your addition in a major way; hope you don't mind. Hope is already mentioned as a theme at the beginning of the section, so I re-worded it to suggest that the following content would build on the aforementioned theme. Also, you were redundant in saying "comments" twice about the voices of children reference, so I re-worded that as well. I also tried to mesh in what the Brussat reviewers said, but I think that could be edited better. I also applied the Cite news template to the references that you provided so they show up in detail in the References section. Let me know if any of my edits were unsatisfactory. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing this citation, I'm not comfortable with the vague mention of the ending -- it could either be the voices of children or the Shantih reference. Maybe it could be re-worded as some kind of transition between the children and Shantih themes, but it seems like OR to surmise what the reviewers actually mean when they say, "Watch for the scene at the end that points the way." —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the review wasn't written as tightly as it could have been. I think the meaning turns on the preceding sentences from the quote:

"Yet deep in the hearts of these immigrants, as in the hearts of the English citizens who hate them and the paramilitary police who torment them, is the same yearning: to see life continue and flourish. Watch for the scene at the end that points the way.

I think that the use of the words, "deep in the hearts...is the yearning to see life continue and flourish" indicates that the citation more aptly refers to the prayer. That the laughter of the children has significance to Cuaron as a symbol of hope I think melds the two. I don't think that needs to be mentioned, of course; just stating the two in proximity demonstrates the correlation between the two without saying so, and neatly sidesteps consideration of ORArcayne 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Erik, your reworking of the added themes statement is pretty good there. :) Arcayne 16:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this citation could be used in the Reception section instead. While the Themes section does consist of reviewers' observations, I think they're comparatively definite observations compared to this citation in question. I'll stare at the paragraph a good while and see if it can be re-inserted in a different context. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that Reception is a good place for it, as that area refers mostly to critical response (positive or negative) and box office returns and the like. As the comment refers to the relative thematic import of Cuaron's "message", it should probably stay in Themes.Arcayne 16:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I take that back. I understand the implication of the statement, but it's tricky to determine where the reference could go instead, being ambiguous in nature. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see the ambiguity as well, but I think that interpreting it based on the context in which it is presented frees us from overthinking it.Arcayne 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, we just need to determine a place for it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I also reverted your recent edit because quite simply, laughter isn't mentioned in that particular citation. It was more of an overall theme of children, with more connections than just the final scene (Nativity Story, etc). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain that last part a bit more? I am not sure i understand what you mean.Arcayne 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to this. The citation does not specifically mention the laughter of children, and your edit had indicated otherwise. I think that the reference is broader, such as being in reference to Kee's child being significant in the film. I think the way it is fine; it mentions the overall children theme, then specifies a lesser instance (the laughter aspect at the end) to support that theme. I don't think it's necessary to include further citation to indicate how Kee's child ties into the director's "children" theme; that was pretty much a major point in the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see what you mean; I had alluded to it incorrectly. I don't see the instance of "lesser instance (the laughter aspect at the end" though. I think that the observation of the laughter ties the statements together.Arcayne 17:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Themes in the lead

Viriditas, surely you don't want to exclude themes from the lead paragraphs. What is the problem with the wording? It summarizes the Themes section, addressing the spiritual and metaphorical aspects. How do you think themes should be addressed in the lead? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I think needs to be done is separate the notings of the themes and the praise, because the praise has yet to be covered in the Reception section. I think that some copy-editing could be done to describe neutrally the cinematography and the themes of the film, and when we develop the Reception section, we can say whether the majority of critics liked it or not. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about using noted in place of praised?Arcayne 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis v. Plot

This has been going back and forth for a bit, with a lot of new users changing it back to plot, I am thinking that it might be advisable to perhaps change it to plot synopsis, which it was at one point. Arcayne 14:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the FA-class film articles, their sections are labeled either Synopsis or Plot. I personally would prefer "Synopsis" because the definition is more one of a summary than "Plot" is. I wouldn't fight hard over which one to have, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't either. I was just noting how individual users have changed it from synopsis to plot on at least two separate occasions, implying some confusion. I think plot might be better because that is what is primarily discussed under that heading (as opposed to any thematic elements, etc), and the word plot may be far more accessible than synopsis to many users.Arcayne 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree that a synopsis would include thematic elements (see #3 here, which basically says a "brief summary" for the film), I agree on the latter reason. I admit I wasn't clear on what "synopsis" meant in my early days of Wikipedia, so "Plot" would be fine with me for the sake of accessibility. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will change it to plot. I wouldn't be opposed to the synthesis of both words, ie. plot synopsis. It denotes clearly that what is being synopsized is the plot. Whichever way is agreeable to all.Arcayne 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the change. Synopsis is more elegant and more accurate regarding the nature of a summary. If users want to change it to plot, they can come here and discuss it. —Viriditas | Talk 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

They have already expressed confusion by changing it to plot at least twice. This says that, at first blush, they aren't making the connection even if the word is "elegant". Clarity beats elegance every time. As well, the word synopsis seems more inclusive of information than it has been interpreted here. By specifying that it is a synopsis of only the plot, we are able to avoid the confusion. Arcayne 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no big deal in leaving it as Plot. It's not going to be a point raised in FA nomination -- I've checked all FA-class film articles, and they use either Plot or Synopsis. Simplicity works; the content should immediately show that it's about what happens in the film. I really don't want to waste my breath over nitpicking this... there's more relevant concerns in improving the article, like the Reception section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbeit Macht Frei

I just noticed that the arbeit macht frei comparison was removed from the article for lack of citation. Granted, while History is something of an interest to me, I thought it fairly common knowledge that the phrase was utilized frequently in nazi concentration camps, here, here and here. It was part of the normaized cruelty of the nazis, and it is quite likely that the use of the image int he film would impact a European audience far more than a US one.Arcayne 17:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I know, and the wiki-link to the phrase mentions that fact. If you can provide a citation that directly ties the internment camp to the Nazi concentration camps through a reviewer's observation, that would be great and tie it more closely to the dystopian themes. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think an earlier used citation addresses that, in the phrasing "well on the way to fascism" (which nazism is pretty much the poster child for). However, it might not. In either case, mentioning that a song by the Libertines plays seems redundant, as the song and the artist appears in the Music section.Arcayne 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean... the Libertines aren't mentioned in the Music section. I think the redundancy is fine because the phrase ties into the thematic elements. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Erik. This isn't redundant like the shantih was in the synopsis. This is more of an overlap that deals directly with the holocaust theme, while the music section and soundtrack article do not. —Viriditas | Talk 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that the nod to the Holocaust theme was simply not there. Without a visial linkup to the concentration camps (at least, not w/out using OR) or having familiarity with the song (and one has to listen very, very carefully) to even hear the words 'arbeit macht frei,' the reference doesn't even belong. We aren't talking about the Shantih, Viriditas - that has already been determined in prior posts here. That being said, at least there was a clearly observational component to it. The arbeit macht frie reference is nowhere near as clear. A pity that Cuaron didn't have it spray-painted inside of Bexhill or something; simply having a song wherein the words are barely audible after the third listening doesn't seem to arise to the standards necessary for inclusion. I think it should be purged altogether as it cannot be referenced outside of one reviewer's reference that it is playing subtly in the background.Arcayne 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair argument. The "Shantih" and Animals references use only one citation; surely you don't want to remove these. While I think the existing citation could be replaced with something that observes the song more closely, I don't think it should be removed if there's no replacement to be found. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the comparisons is that the citations can be easily seen or heard observationally, whereas the arbeit macht frei reference is based almost solely upon the reviewer's knowledge of song titles by the Libertines. Do I think it should really be cut? No. Do I think a better reference be provided, to clean up the relationship between what is observed and what it means? Yes.Arcayne 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources opine on this topic, whereas one, barely reliable source mentions the shantih allusion. Shouldn't you be looking for better sources to support your own edits, first? And just exactly what is your issue with the sources cited? Don't bring this up again if you can't answer that question. —Viriditas | Talk 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert of lead

Erik, you reverted a more accurate and ordered lead paragraph in favor of a poorly written, uncited and unsourced version. Why you or anyone would do that is quite strange. The statement you included, "while simultaneously maintaining a spiritual and metaphorical tone from the opening sequence to the last moments of the film" is not unique to this film, nor is the statement supported. All films maintain themes. The lead should specify the theme ("hope") and not make general statements. And where is the source for "from the opening sequence to the last moments of the film"? Furthermore, the material added to the theme section to provide support for this material was not cited correctly. The source actually said: "Cuarón, who is 44 and has three children, says it is no accident that young people have been central to his work, in films such as A Little Princess, Y Tu Mama Tambien and Harry Potter, because children are very "important in my own notions of hope. And Children of Men is a film about hope". —Viriditas | Talk 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the writing was perfect, but I think we need to decide how the lead paragraphs should be addressed overall. Read below and share your thoughts. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We can decide all day, but please don't revert more accurate and concise writing in favor of poorly written, unsourced claims. —Viriditas | Talk 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what your disagreement is. What he said was an overall emphasis about children. He didn't describe Children of Men as "a film about hope" separately from what he had said about children. It isn't a separate kind of hope he mentions in this context. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a disagreement. I'm simply observing that Arcayne's recent additions to the theme and lead section don't match up with sources. Arcayne writes: "To emphasize the theme of hope, Cuarón included children as an element, considering them "important in my own notions of hope"." No, the source says: "Cuarón, who is 44 and has three children, says it is no accident that young people have been central to his work, in films such as A Little Princess, Y Tu Mama Tambien and Harry Potter, because children are very "important in my own notions of hope. And Children of Men is a film about hope"." There I nothing about Cuaron including children in the film. It's very important that we maintain high standards here, or the article will degenerate into more of this. —Viriditas | Talk 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now. I was reading it in a different manner. I see what you're saying now, and I agree that the particular citation doesn't fit in that context. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to ask you to remain civil again, Viriditas. Please stop making trollish attacks.Arcayne 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? —Viriditas | Talk 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop addressing my edits in a derogatory fashion. If you disagree with the edits, you should do so, but in a fashion that allows for a conducive working environment, and not one that creates friction and foments edit wars. We both want to avoid that, right? Simply add constructive suggestions on how to add to the edits already in place, and not simply belittle edits already made in good faith.Arcayne 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, but you must learn to separate the edits from the editor. I will most certainly address bad edits that do not meet basic Wikipedia standards in a derogatory (look up the word) fashion. —Viriditas | Talk 03:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph layout

First of all, I think we should keep any mention of the film's reception out of the lead paragraph until we have a Reception section as well-rounded as Production and Themes. I think copy-editing could be done to briefly describe in the lead paragraphs the cinematography and the themes that the director put forth with his film. In addition, I think we should reduce the second lead paragraph (a summary of a summary) into a single sentence and make it part of the first lead paragraph. My idea is that the first paragraph would have the very basic details about the film, the second paragraph would be about cinematography/themes, and the last paragraph would be about how it was received, in terms of overall critical praise (or lack thereof) and awards that the film has received. Any other ideas? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I probably reverted too swiftly.... I don't think either revision quite addressed the article, as it exists currently, in an appropriate summary. Hence my suggestions above to re-evaluate how the lead paragraph should be constructed. I agree with you, though, Viriditas, that "from the beginning to the end" was unnecessary verbiage... we can keep it simpler to say that themes exist throughout the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. And the use of non-active voice, "has been" twice, criticism coming before production, etc. —Viriditas | Talk 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a possible passage here for the lead paragraph that would describe the film's themes in the appropriate article writing style? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why I can't add it to the article? —Viriditas | Talk 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess to minimize cases of reverting, so we can all share our $0.02 before inserting the final product? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it noted somewhere that the lead has to follow the construct of the article? I didn't see it listed as anything but a suggestion in the guideline.

I rather disagree that the phrase "spiritual and metaphorical tone" is unsupported. You may recall that you argued rather insistently the at the film was Catholic allegory (even provided a cite for it) and, unless I am mistaken, Catholic fulfills the spiritual part of the statement whilst allegory fits the metaphorical description quite nicely. As there are more themes than simply that of hope (also noted by citation), I think it misleading to address only it in the lead. As far as making a note that the director's hand was in the film through the entirety of the film (whereas most directors are pretty much done with their film by the time the credits start rolling) is deserving of mention.Arcayne 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Viriditas was more concerned with the wording of it. I don't believe he has any intent to exclude the thematic mentions, but he may be seeking a different way of presenting a summary of the themes per the writing styles he has pointed out on occasion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidly, I think that the wording I replaced was, while not perfect, a vast improvement on what was there before. I welcome his suggestions as to what he feels should be addressed rathe than the uncivil remarks he has instead chosen to add. Let him offer an alternative here, so it can be addressed in a more civil manner than he has chosen to address the work already in place.Arcayne 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs demonstrating how you improved the section. —Viriditas | Talk 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Viriditas. You were asked to provide an alternative to what is already there, so it can be addressed. You may submit your statements here, so that we can evaluate them by the same criteria you have measured alternatives by.Arcayne 22:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. It is the responsibility of the editor to substantiate their additions to the article. I have added the OR tag due to the lack of cited sources for your lead material, which was previously removed. —Viriditas | Talk 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)\

Again, please provide an alternative to what is already there, instead of adding tags which express your views alone, and essentially clutters the article. You are being given a golden opportunity to present your alternative lead and thematic statements now so that we can evaluate them on their merits. This opportunity offers you the chance to seek a concensus, which is what everyone else in this article (and Wikipedia) has chosen to do. I have expressed before why the statements I have added are there. You may find that reviewing them to be helpful.Arcayne 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The content you added was unsourced, did not appear in the article previously, and cite requests were removed. There is no "alternative" to this situation. I originally wrote and added the section, to which you added original research. So, you have the burden of proof. —Viriditas | Talk 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

JESUS! VIRIDITAS! Wikipedia does not work by fucking slapping on tags, whether it be troll warning or OR! You are both clearly able to communicate, and I've tried to provide an opportunity here for all of us to figure out what would be agreeable to write for the lead paragraphs! I'm going to reduce the lead paragraphs to the minimal detail until we fill out the article enough so none of us bitch about the other's edits. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work. —Viriditas | Talk 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Now... share your bloody ideas. Are my suggestions at the beginning of the section appropriate enough? Are there any recommendations in how the lead paragraphs should be presented, based on other FA-class film articles' leads? Or any original ideas that are in line with WP:LEAD, for that matter? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you be specific? You mentioned something about expanding the reception section, first, which I support. —Viriditas | Talk 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's do that. Let's make sure the prominent awards and nominations for the film are mentioned, and to provide positive and negative criticism (more positive than negative, since it was more positively received). In the meantime, we can develop a second lead paragraph that discusses the format of the film -- the cinematography and the thematic cross-referencing. The reception information can be summarized in a third lead paragraph when we fill out the Reception section. Maybe go so far to state that CoM was screened in the UK for a while before it came out in the US. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There was mention before about how the Lead should follow the progression of the article (ie, plot, production, theme, music, reception, etc.) I know that is an optional guideline, but not all FA articles do that. Is that what we want to do here? I ask for clarification.Arcayne 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I definitely think a summary of the film's reception should go at the end, but I don't have a strong preference about how to address the themes and cinematography. Maybe we can mention cinematography relatively briefly in the first lead paragraph, then devote a whole second paragraph to themes, as that seems to be the "goal" of the film. Of course, that's my opinion, and I'm all ears for fresh ideas. In the meantime, I'll try to put together some cited reviews to help expand the Reception section so we can draw upon it down the road. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Whenever the discussion slows down here, perhaps we might think about archiving this talk page? It's reached 235 kilobytes now. Just a suggestion. Disinclination 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. That was a lot of discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph Layout, Take 2

Well, i think that seems like a good way to approach it. Viriditas did have a good idea about making a point of drawing attention to the cinematography. As in The Matrix (a film that is neither FA or GA), something new was done to expand the field beyond where it was before, and it was done to accomplish a certain goal. The cinematography in CoM was designed to create an immediacy to the film, and to ground it in reality (yes, all of that was OR :) ). I think this was a 'message' film, rather than an action shoot-em-up or, as some critics have called it, and action film with chase scenes. Since lots of films are message films, I think it probably more important to use the lead to focus on the most important aspects of the article to the least (as journalists are taught) first - the cinematography and production, then the themes, then the reception. What do you think?

Explanation for revert requested

Arcayne, why did you change, "Cuarón did not attempt to use the dystopian, futuristic setting of the film as a cautionary tale, but rather as a premise for viewing the dystopia of the present" back to "Cuarón has stated that he was not attempting to use the dystopic, slightly futuristic setting presented by Children of Men as a cautionary tale, but rather as a premise for viewing the dystopia of the present." [1] As explained above, needless words and qualifiers that don't appear in the source text make the prose less accurate and concise. —Viriditas | Talk 01:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because my edit used the language a bit more elegantly. It also had the virtue of being more accurate.Arcayne 01:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How is that possible when your edit was less concise and inserted a qualifier that changed the meaning and did not appear in the original source? —Viriditas | Talk 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I will ask one last time, Viriditas - do you wish to offer a statement to help us finish this article, or not?Arcayne 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I just asked you a question, and you ignored it by changing the subject. I removed the statement from the article as another piece of OR. When you are ready to discuss why you feel it is necessary to make the text less concise, introduce needless words, and add original research, you are free to respond. —Viriditas | Talk 03:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't talk to me any more. You have demonstrated that you either cannot or will not work with others, You managed to drive off the best chance we had to make CoM an FA article, and your only response is to essentailly shrug. Asssuming good faith doesn't mean overlooking trollish, uncivil behavior. I will edit as I see fit to get the article to as good as I can get it, and I will not be seeking your approval or concensus while doing so. I will be seeking outside editorial oversight for the inevitable revert war you decide to engage in, and when you break 3RR, I will report it. Every single time. This is the last time I address you directly. We are done here.Arcayne 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I've never had an edit war or major disagreement with Erik in this article, so I don't understand your POV. If you can't answer questions about your edits, or support your edits when asked, then you probably shouldn't be editing this article. I'm sorry you feel this is personal when it's not. One thing that did concern me in this regard, however, was what appeared to be your overly aggressive attempts to intimidate editors who found fault with your edits on their talk pages, namely myself, User:Disinclination, User:Bazketballr, and a number of others. In fact, I banned you from my talk page for making threats, and for your generally impolite behavior, which you admit to above. So, if anyone has "chased" editors off this article, or attempted to do so, it is you. —Viriditas | Talk 04:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis heading

I prefer the synopsis heading as we are discussing a summary of the plot, not the plot itself. Why was this changed? —Viriditas | Talk 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the conversation above where this was discussed. There was no strong preference either way, and it was argued that most FA articles have either plot or synopsis/ As plot is a more accurate description than synopsis, it was changed. I still thank that plot synopsis would be more accurate still, as it would overview the plot, and not the entire article. It was one of the main reasons that thematic elements aren't included, as they would in a synopsis. I hope that recaps matters.Arcayne 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Erik and I have both expressed our preference for "synopsis", and "plot synopsis" is redundant. So, why was the header changed to "plot"? —Viriditas | Talk 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-read "Synopsis vs. Plot" -- "While I disagree that a synopsis would include thematic elements (see #3 here, which basically says a "brief summary" for the film), I agree on the latter reason. I admit I wasn't clear on what 'synopsis' meant in my early days of Wikipedia, so 'Plot' would be fine with me for the sake of accessibility." —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read it and don't see the rationale. "Synopsis" implies "a brief outline of a plot, setting, or important points of a work" whereas "Plot" does not. —Viriditas | Talk 02:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not going to waste my time debating a fucking single word. The debate over a single "Shantih" sentence was bad enough. You ladies do what you like. I'm done with contributing to this article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. —Viriditas | Talk 02:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Theo's death removed?

I thought the consensus was that he died, according to two citations that a user put up:

According to the director Theo dies. - JenGe 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

“As much as the Nativity reference in regards to spiritual archetype [in Children of Men] is present,” says the director, “for Clive Owen’s character his archetype is more Moses. He dies before he sees the Promised Land. The difference is that, in the Bible, Moses died before seeing the Promised Land because he doubted and he was punished while here [Owen] dies because he doesn’t need to see the Promised Land."

http://www.moviefreak.com/artman/publish/interviews_alfonsocuaron.shtml

Alfonso Cuaron: ...You see the Clive Owen character more than Joseph is Moses. He's the guy who dies before seeing the Promised Land. The difference is that in the Bible Moses dies before he sees the Promised Land because he doubted. In Clive's character, he dies before seeing the Promised Land because he doesn't need to see the Promised Land. He recovered what he was looking for which was his sense of hope. And as long as you have that sense of hope, then you do not need confirmation of things.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/cuaron.php

Did I miss something again? I just thought of it again because I've been seeing some things reverted at the end of the plot/synposis/whatever stating he either went unconscious or he was dead, and this was going to end that debate? Disinclination 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If the director says he is dead, it should be put back in and referenced. --Beanssnaeb 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Theo dies. From the script: "Kee looks at Theo. He’s slumped over, dead." A previous revision specified that Theo was "fatally shot" but that seems to have been removed. I apologize for contributing to the confusion with my edit. —Viriditas | Talk 22:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Theo is dead, but disregard any irresponsible comments regarding the so-called official script. There are a great many discrepancies between what's in the movie and what is in the script, and is a barely RS. Cuaron has said in interviews that Theo dies, and while it has been placed in the plot inelegantly, it is accurate. I didn't realize that it had been removed, as the quotes mentioned before decided it a few weeks ago.Arcayne 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean you are no longer arguing that Theo is alive? How quickly you change your mind. The official script is entirely accurate, and you have not demonstrated a single discrepancy. Of course, actors improvise, and post production isn't going to reflect the basic plot structure of the script - but that's exactly what we are talking about. —Viriditas | Talk 06:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys. Disinclination 08:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unmarked reverts and disruptive editing

I'm concerned about Arcayne's latest reverts, which were not labeled as reverts in the edit summary: [2] [3]. The use of qualifiers and needless words are not helpful. —Viriditas | Talk 21:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(First of all, I don't want either of you to start dredging anything about any 3RR incidents in the past.) I support minimalism in the writing, as long as the content remains intact. Maybe Arcayne has a reason for his expansion, that something didn't make sense to him right away with the previous edit. I'm retiring from Wikipedia for the day, so I hope you both can discuss copy-edit techniques without raising anyone's blood pressure. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA and Elements of Style covers the use of ambiguous, unsupported qualifiers. Arcayne added "slightly" to the passage - that is not covered in the source text. The film takes place in the future. Arcayne also added back in needless words that makes the writing less concise. —Viriditas | Talk 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please address your issues at the bottom of the page, so as to avoid the appearance of hiding your comments.Arcayne 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would I want to hide my comments? I warned you about making unmarked reverts yesterday, and today, you continued to do it, using a similar edit summary: [4] [5] Please take some time to familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. —Viriditas | Talk 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we are not going to discuss this, as it can serve no purpose except to act as fuel for an edit war. Granted, I haven't been the most polite person to you, and for that, I am sorry. That said, i am not your editorial punching bag. If my opinion differs from yours, it doesn't make me incompetent. I suggest - strongly - that you move on, and work with your fellow contributors from here on out to finsh editing the article. Do that, and we're copacetic. Don't make the effort, and it will remain difficult.Arcayne 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. This section is about your use of unmarked reverts, and you have been warned twice. Don't do it again. —Viriditas | Talk 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we are not going to do this, Viriditas. This section is not germane to the article. You yourself have done what you are now accusing me of having done, and its simply a tactic. Either way, we are done talking about it. Any further posts by yourself on this subject will be ignored.Arcayne 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no accusations. Diffs have been posted above to show your unmarked reverts, which amounts to gaming the system during one of the many disruptive edit wars you've waged on this article. You were warned twice. If you do it again, administrative action may be requested. Since you acknowledged the previous two warnings, you have no excuse. —Viriditas | Talk 02:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. There's a clear record now of disruptive editing by Arcayne, deliberately choosing to ignore the warnings above, continuing to falsify edit summaries to hide reverts to avoid the 3RR, as well as a record of restoring unsourced, original research, which is against policy and may be removed by any editor at any time: [6] [7] Erickster removed the disputed content from the article, and unless you can source it, and use accurate summaries, do not add it back in. You are free to discuss the unsourced disputed content here as before. Do not continue to disruptively edit, promote edit wars, falsify edit summaries to hide reverts, and add disputed, unsourced original research to the article without discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, my edits aren't disruptive, they are instead constructive - I can understand how the difference might elude you, as you seem to engage in edit-warring and 3RR at the drop of a hat. Every one of my edits are sourced - you need to simply, well, look at them. If you aren't prepared to do that, then you might wish to explore a different pastime. As for warnings, I urge you to invite administrative review of the article. In fact, I strongly urge you to do so - I am quite confident that they will look over the history of the article, and I am pretty sure that you are not going to enjoy the results. And please, don't embarrass yourself by citing the actions of an otherwise even-keeled editor who blew up at you and fled the article because your uncivil behavior became intolerable, as did your repeated 3RR violations and constant, disruptive reverts only barely hidden by your edit summaries. You always seem quite keen to report others for that which you have been guilty of doing. I am not going to stop editing the article because - frankly - the article benefits from my edits. If that means that you question my edits, so be it. At least, I am willing to explain them, or point out to you where I have explained them at least two or three times beforehand. Your WP:OWN behavior will not be tolerated, and your disruptive edits and 3RR will be reported. Please do not revert my edits again, unless you are able to prove that my information is unsourced, or are able to write something better. Your uncivil behavior will be not be tolerated either. If you truly feel that my edits are not helpful to the article, then I urge you to ask for independent editor review, as Erik wisely counseled on at least two occasions. Perhaps you will actually concede to it this time.Arcayne 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are the very definition of a disruptive editor, and your edits to Wikipedia are making the encyclopedia less credible and less respectable. The polices have been explained to you many times. We do not have to "prove your information is unsourced" - that's absurdity. You've reverted back unsourced content using a false edit summary for the fourth time, when you were told not to make unmarked reverts. In addition, you removed a new Cast section that at least three editors were in the process of creating, fully sourced. And finally, unsourced, original research is not allowed. Stop adding it. And, stop adding a fake quote that appears neither in the source nor the film. You need to go back to your original sources to discover your errors. You are free to use the temp page and start a new collaborative lead section at Talk:Children of Men/Temp to work with the other editors on this page who are willing to assist you with sources and verifying information. That is how we created the cast section. Learn to work with others instead of against them and you will find your time here well spent. —Viriditas | Talk 04:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please, no more back and forth editing (Viriditas and Arcayne). I'm positive we can come to a common agreement. Could you please each of you link a HIST under this comment where I can look at the two exact version you each are working. I'd like to help find a happy medium we can all agree to. Thanks. --Beanssnaeb 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

All he needs to do is source the content with RS. I suggest we use the temp page linked above to work on the lead to come to a consensus on the lead section. —Viriditas | Talk 04:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've been reading through the two versions and I'll give you my opinion:

"Critics have noted that the film creates a heightened sense of realism through its innovative use of extended handheld camera shots seamlessly stitched together while simultaneously maintaining a spiritual and metaphorical tone until the last moments of the film."

--This can be used, but needs a source where critics have said it. innovative use is contestable, imo, and should be removed. other that that, add a REF and it's all good.

I personally want production and cast split, but that's my opinion. read my comment in the section above. we need further dialogue on this between the editors.

Cuarón has stated that he was not attempting to use the dystopic, slightly futuristic setting...

This is good and should stay, but maybe merged in with another paragraph.

In the film, the character Miriam comments that...'

Should be removed. these are my opinions. thoughts? let's talk it over before doing anymore reverts. --Beanssnaeb 04:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree, mostly because I wrote it,[8] [9] except for the original research Arcayne tacked on, such as the themes part and the misreading of the Miriam quote - he added that stuff. The irony is that he removed it as OR,[10] and then re-added it with OR.[11] I never had a chance to cite my own material because he's been edit warring over it ever since. The thing is, he doesn't even realize that he's removed the cast section, nor does he realize that the quote he keeps adding,[12] doesn't appear as a quote in the source [13] nor the film (Arcayne misread a paraphrase as a quote and represented it as such instead of rewriting it to reflect the view of the reviewer). He just keeps reverting without trying to understand that content requires sources, and sources that don't reflect the content don't belong. He has no respect for the editors who are working hard to improve this article. —Viriditas | Talk 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to address this again, so I am clear:

"Critics have noted that the film creates a heightened sense of realism through its innovative use of extended handheld camera shots seamlessly stitched together"

I will attempt to source this on the temp page later tonight.

"while simultaneously maintaining a spiritual and metaphorical tone until the last moments of the film."

This is something Arcayne wrote, and AFAIK, there are no sources for it. It's original research

Cast section

Three of us support a cast section. Like I said, I don't think Arcayne even realizes what he is reverting.

Cuarón has stated that he was not attempting to use the dystopic, slightly futuristic setting...

I originally added this [14] but stuck very close to the source, writing: "The dystopian, futuristic setting of Children of Men was intended to reflect the present, not as a cautionary tale of a projected future, but one of reform." This is an interpretation of a review and a quote, and the source does not infer or use the word "slightly", nor does it make that distinction. We need to be careful with interpretations, and adding qualifiers that change the meaning of the source. So, for now, this doesn't work, however, I am hopeful we can rewrite it, find other sources, and come to an agreement.

In the film, the character Miriam comments that...'

It doesn't even appear in the source, and the original is completely different. —Viriditas | Talk 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

EditWarring Revisited

Sorry I couldn't respond right away; the real world intruded (electrical outtage at home, busy morning at work). I am going to deal with the issues in reverse, as the Lead Statements are likely to take up a bit more space. The following statement from Themes:

In the film, the character Miriam comments that "the voices of children are what keep the world from tipping into self-destruction", to which reviewer Jay Antani adds, "That sentiment is borne out precisely and perfectly in Cuarón's final scenes."

This is almost a direct quotation from the article cited, appearing in the last two sentences of the second to last paragraph of the review. The sentence structure I chose to use to join these statements together is called good, not OR. I am at odds trying to understand how the quote was OR. What I didn't add was the statement:

Cuarón has discussed how children are "important in my own notions of hope" (http://living.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1367622006)

Because while it is clear what he was imparting, its connection to the thematic use of children (and children's laughter at the end) was not concrete.

Cuarón has stated that he was not attempting to use the dystopic, slightly futuristic setting presented by Children of Men as a cautionary tale, but rather as a premise for viewing the dystopia of the present.

This is a paraphrasing of an interview (The Hollywood Reporter, Borys Kit: "Thinking 'Men', 2006-11-21) appearing in a non-electronic version of the article which - as has been pointed out by another editor - is just as citable as an electronic source. Whereas the initial version of the statement fell short in describing the interview's content. During the concersation, Cuaron discussed that there was no point in discussing some far off dystopia when we were living it right now. The previous qualification of the movie being about a call for 'reform' was out of context. The word 'slightly' was inserted as reinforcement to cited material in the Production section that discussed how Cuaron was intensely interested in avoiding the scifi trappings, instead using familiar automobiles with slightly unfamiliar advancements. I was seeking a description that encompassed what Cuaron had addressed over several interviews:

"I wanted a future that didn’t automatically tell the audience it was the future, the audience had to figure it out for themselves – for instance, though the cars are from the future, they look almost normal, its hard to spot their differences”, the director...says. “We didn’t want to do a future that was about the future – but about the present”. (citation)

Of course, more variations of this opinion appear in other interviews. It was thusly that I used the word 'slightly' to communicate that the focus was not supposed to be on the sci-fi trappings, but on the message for today that Cuaron was clearly - from the reviews and interviews - trying to communicate. Was the word 'slightly' used in any of them? No. Some poetic license is involved, such as it is when describing other parts of the Theme (similarities are 'noted, the highlighting of spiritual themes, or how one's work resonates with the themes). Some crafting is necessary to join separate ideas together. This occurs in FA articles consistently. Clearly, the need for care is called for when making interpretations, but the stretch here is not so great as, say, attempting to interpret "the mythic twin thunderbolts of Theo's virility and whatnot" (another editor's interpretation).

And now,on to the lead statement that apparently has everyone up in arms:

The film has been a critical success in its release in the UK and the United States, where it has been nominated for American and British Academy Awards. Critics have noted that the film creates a heightened sense of realism through its innovative use of extended handheld camera shots seamlessly stitched together, while simultaneously maintaining a spiritual and metaphorical tone until the last moments of the film.

As per WP:LEAD, this follows very closely what a lead paragraph should have in it. You may note in an a number of FA articles, citations aren't used unless specific statements are made, and LEAD suggests more than once that the lead should be accessible, to draw he reader in, which of course, a citation-heavy lead does not do. Most FA Leads are paraphrasings of the contents within, the citations residing in the sections and topics they refer to. As well, since WP is not a collection of links, so unnecessary citations only serve to clutter the Lead. This is just like Journalism 101 in that the first paragraphs of the article provide an overview for what is within, without noting specifics. This is also confirmed by the LEAD guidelines. Let's deconstruct the statements and look at their components for accuracy and verifiability:

• "the film has been a critical success" - I think it is clear from the reception and awards sections that it has been successfully well-received by critics both here in the US and in the UK.
• ""..where it has been nominated for American and British Academy Awards" - also pretty clear.
• Critics have noted that the film creates a heightened sense of realism through its innovative use of extended handheld camera shots" - at least two different critics have noticed (that something is noteworthy is redundant - were it not, it wouldn't have been noted that the use of the handheld camera for extended periods of time added to the gritty realism of the film, and both the use of handheld cams and the the innovative appelation is addressed significantly in the Production section. As well, since the cinematography effects had not been used before it, by definition, renders them innovative. It should be noted thatprior versions of the Lead referred to reality as opposed to realism. Reality is the objective environment we find ourselves in from moment to moment. As a film is reality viewed through the perceptions of another (director, cameraman, etc.) and is edited to render a story, it cannot be reality. Therefore, realism is a more accurate definer.
• "...seamlessly stitched together..." - also fairly clear, from the Production header. Most viewers (and reviewers, for that matter) were completely unaware that the running battle in Bexhill was not in fact a single take but several that were joined together in post-production.
• "...while simultaneously maintaining a spiritual and metaphorical tone..." - This addresses the Themes section, where it is empirically clear from both statements from the director and reviewers' observations of the film, that the film was about hope (spiritual) and that the use of similar imagery of Abu Ghraib and the Maze (metaphor) were consistently used through the movie. I could go on with other examples already present in the article, both spiritual (Cuaron's commisioning of Tavener to create music to highlight the spiritual themes as wellas the use of of a Sanskrit-based hindi prayer at the very end of the film, Shantih shantih shantih) and metaphorical (Theo not using a gun, the sounds of children laughing during the final credits unrelated to the closing credits music).

  "...until the last moments of the film." - The last two instances above clearly indicate that the spiritual and metaphorical intentions of Cuaron continued beyond Theo and Kee's closing scene in the boat. There is the sound of children laughing and playing which is not listed as part of either soundtrack, yet plays throughout the credits. As well,the very last moments of the film, before the film ends and the lights go up in the theater, the words shantih shantih shantih are displayed on the screen. These are obviously thematic components, as it has been determined that they are not of the "storyworld" of the plotline. And they are at the end of the movie.

Ipso facto, the Lead statement is accurate in its entirety. It is also quite nicely done, if I say so myself. As for the Cast section getting reverted when I reinserted information reverted en toto by Viriditas, that was my fault. While I think that a cast section is unnecessary (most FA articles don't have one for such a small core cast ensemble); Viriditas was correct in that it was not at all my intention to remove it, and I apologize for any consternation its removal may have precipitated. I hope this helps explain the statements in question, Beanssnaeb.Arcayne 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can buy that. things have been edited and revert so many times it is difficult for me to keep track. also, im all for talking about metaphor and such, but much of it is touchy and could be considered OR unless the director or a writer specifies the meanings behind the scenes and it is referenced -- so i would avoid dissecting metaphor unless there is official word from Cuaron about the meaning. other than that, nicely done. as for the cast, i think a cast section is a good idea to help keep the production from bloating up to much, but that's my view. i suggest we remove the cast for now, but keep it on the temp talk page. I'll do a sweep of the production section and see if i can nicely merge the cast on the temp page with the current production and see if i can make the formatting look a little bit more attractive. if everyone is happy with how that turns out, then im happy. Any other thoughts from you or Viriditas is welcome and i would like to help us merge our creations together to benefit the article as a whole. thanks for replying. --Beanssnaeb 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

78% of FA-Class film articles contain cast sections. —Viriditas | Talk 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading Arcayne's response, I still maintain that the sources don't reflect the passages, and I urge him to review them. I don't see any good reason to remove the cast section with three editors supporting and one opposing. Furthermore, all FA film articles are different, and a general argument about a specific detail isn't valid. A recent FA film article, V for Vendetta, has a cast section, and the film is similar to this one in many respects. —Viriditas | Talk 06:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other on the Cast section. If the concensus is that it makes it better, then that's fine me (where did we arrive at the statistic of 78%?). As I spent a considerable amount of time explaining how my statements weren't fake or unsourced, I would say that they have been reviewed enough. If specific objections exist to my statements exist, please express them. Arcayne 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did, above with diffs, and below, briefly. I will again summarize: The quote is not a quote from Miriam as you seem to think, but a quote from the author. The Borys Kit material is an interpretation of a review and a direct quote, and the word "slightly" does not appear in the source. The lead is problematic for the same reasons, with the additions of unsourced OR like "critical success", "innovative", and "metaphorical" etc. There is no need to keep explaining your personal interpretations, as we are not allowed to include them in the article. If you need further help in this matter, you can place a tag on your talk page, and someone will contact you. I really want to get the development back on track and stop arguing about basic policies. Out of curiousity, have you tried creating a new article by yourself? Sometimes that is a good way to learn the ropes. Right now, I want to fast track this article, and the edit warring and misunderstandings of basic policies and guidelines is really slowing things down. I would like to ask you to remain vocal in your critical perspective, which I think is needed just about everywhere, but to refrain from adding or altering any content without discussion until you are more comfortable as an editor. We are working to improve an article, and fighting about basic policies is about the last thing needed here. —Viriditas | Talk 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw, and have responded to them.I am also interested in fast-tracking the article and making sure it reaches FA status. the only one arguing consistently is you. I have not been the only one reverted by you, and you certainly have wasted an enormous amount of time edit-warring over such small matters that you have literally driven other editors away. I fail to see how that sort of environment serves to get an article back on track. My edits are improvements, as explained below. You might well learn to enjoy them.

Please, do not concern yourself with my personal development as an editor; your belittling my so-called 'pet theories', and rank uncivility have served to be rather pointed lessons in spotting what a good editor is not. If I choose to not create an article, it is not for a lack of interest or skill, but rather of time. Thanks for pointing out yet another cheap shot.Arcayne 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're just distracting again. You were asked not to mae unmarked reverts under false edit summaries, the diffs in the previous section show you refused to stop. You were asked to cite a quote accurately, and you maintain that it was. Look at the source and compare it to what you wrote. The author is paraphrasing a character from the film in a review, whereas your edit assumes that the quote is a direct quote from the character. You were asked to cite sources for your additions to the lead, which you refuse to do. You were asked to cite sources for the film's "critical success", which you refuse to do. You were asked to cite sources for the film's "metaphor" stated from beginning to end, which you refuse to do. Since you refuse to do these things, please stop arguing for their inclusion. I can source the material you stole and incorporated, because I did the research, which again, you refuse to do. This has been explained to you, so don't reply unless you can cite sources. —Viriditas | Talk 19:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to address the rest of Arcayne's response, but I will do so briefly, according to talk page guidelines. (Please, do not leave long messages here.)

• The quote cited is a misqoute of a paraphrase made by a reviewer. There are no quotes around it in the article, nor were those words spoken in the film. We do not introduce errors into Wikipedia articles. Please, review the source again. If you need to ask someone you trust to help you, please do so.
• Your claim about the Borys Kit interview I researched and paraphrased, is frankly, bizarre. I wrote the section based on an offline source that I provided, at which point you decided to change the meaning by admittedly adding the word 'slightly' that appeared in a different source. That is a synthesis of material, in other words original research. You said you were "seeking a description that encompassed what Cuaron had addressed over several interviews...Some crafting is necessary to join separate ideas together." Yes, and that's against policy. This was explained to you several times and policy page links were given to you to read.
• Your explanation about the lead is another defense of your insertion of original research. It isn't allowed. If a source is requested, provide one, don't demand editors "prove it's unsourced". If it lacks a source it's clearly unsourced.
• No sources have been offered for the statement "the film has been a critical success". Please don't keep adding your interpretations to the article. A cite request was made and remains unfulfilled.
• "Critics have noted..." Again, something I wrote that you distorted. No source was offered for your insertion of the word "innovative". Please stop adding it. Of course, I added sources to talk for the rest of the statement.
• "while simultaneously maintaining a spiritual and metaphorical tone..." No sources offered, and your claim that it is "empirically clear" is again evidence of original research.
• I understand that you are experiencing problems because you are a new user, but it's time for you to take a break and read up on policy. —Viriditas | Talk 13:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I do thank you ever so much for your concern, but I am not really experiencing difficulties. I may be a relatively new user, but I have read up on policy. I would offer the same beneficial advice to you - you've not really served the article well by commandeering the article and chasing away others.

• The first quote is not, as you say a misquote. It is almost word-for-word from the article in question (a quote that, I might add, you suggested was fake).
• I will concede that my use of the word 'slightly' was synthesis. I have no further objections to replacing it.
• I don't demand editors to "prove it's unsourced."
• Critical success means success with critics. Perhaps you are interpreting that incorrectly. As the reception area is another area that the Lead reflects, I think its pretty well-sourced.
• Perhaps you may wish to review WP:Lead, Viriditas. After an overview of FA articles, it appears that some synthesis does occur in the lead statements without overloading it with references. By examples here, here, here, and here, we can see that there is a consistent pattern of synthesis of the article in the Lead, and without a single source cited. Of course, there are more FA articles just like the ones cited above, and indeed a small portion do in fact have source citations, but they are fairly few. "Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section)," and a summary is in fact a paraphrasement.

With the weight of so many FA articles that speak specifically contrary to your opinions against a paraphrased lead, I think I can understand that your major difficulty with my Lead is that it replaced your lead, Certainly you remember that WP warns all users - new and experienced, that if you are unable to weather having your edits altered, then perhaps you are in the wrong environment. It may be helpful for you to step away fromt he article for a while and allow others to contribute without you feeling threatened by their contribution (over the past month, you have revert almost all contributions from others - not just mine). Perhaps a little break is called for.Arcayne 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You are experiencing difficulties, because you are still arguing over basic policies. Nobody has been chased away; rather the opposite. Users have been working collaboratively on the temp article to create a lead and cast section. That you cannot see how you misquoted the author by attributing a quote to the character, tells me you don't understand the citation policy. Looking at the edit history, I see reverts and edit wars from you stretching back almost two months: you waged an edit war against an editor who was trying to represent a minority view per NPOV; you waged an edit war to reinsert trivia against the TRIV guideline; you waged an edit war to include your unsourced, pet theory of the shantih, against the NOR policy; and now, you are waging an edit war to include unsourced OR in the lead. Your disruptive behavior has remained consistent for months. I think it is time for you to reflect on your contributions to this article. You have done zero research, and written very little, instead taking the research and writing that others have done, only to distort the source material and the composition beyond recognition, endangering the credibiliy of the article. Yes, a break is indeed needed, by you and for the sake of this article. —Viriditas | Talk 15:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reinforcing my point about your lack of civility. Your arguments are decidedly unconvincing, as my edits tended to be reverted only by yourself (and occasionally Erik, to appease you until he left in disgust at your inability to be polite). You could have simply stopped edit warring - someone of your "expereince" might have been aware that it wasn't serving the article all that much. Certainly, your lack of civility did not help matters. While it seems you are turning something of a corner by allowing others to contribute to the article, you don't seem quite ready enough to focus on the matters at hand. Review the FA articles, Viriditas. Review Lead; I cannot take the time to hold your hand during the editing process. My statements are solid and, with minor adjustments to remove synthesis outside of the Lead, will be added to the article - they are positive contributions to the article. You can choose to start yet another edit war by flasely characterizing the contributions while reverting them, but they will be added. I am learning that it takes all kinds of vegetables to make a stew. and all kinds of editors to make an article. You might find that lesson valuable to yourself as well. Please, take a break.Arcayne 15:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your response indicates why I have repeatedly called you a troll. This is not an argument inteneded to "convince" you of Wikipedia policy. The edit history and talk page demonstrate that your edits have been reverted by many users for almost two months. Your interpretation of Erik's many, many reverts of your edits as "occassionaly" is absurd. He must have reverted you four times in just the last 48 hours he was here, and every other editor who has had to deal with your disruptive behavior has done the same. Other users have been contributing to the article during the long weeks of your NPOV, trivia, shantih, and OR edit wars, all of which are documented on talk and in the edit history. You continue to insist that disputed, unsourced "statements are solid and...will be added to the article..they are positive contributions." We have been over this. You've been asked to provide sources. I provided sources for the material I wrote on talk, which you then took, and addded your own OR to, and edit warred to include. That's disruptive editing, and you've been asked to stop for almost two months. In the process, you've been reverted by many editors to keep you in line. If you can't contribute to this article within policy guidleines, then please don't edit the article. It's very simple, and you have chosen not to work within that framework. You've even made recent statements on talk threatening to edit war on this article for as long as it takes. If you can't be convinced to follow the rules, then you shouldn't be allowed to edit here. It's very simple. —Viriditas | Talk 18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you cannot be civil, please - say nothing at all, You have repeatedly missed the point of every thing I have said, and yet when I correct you, you just continue to argue and be disruptive and uncivil. You have chosen to blame me for your edit warring. You aregue over the use of words that you have taken pains to argue about yourself. You have not one single thing to teach me, as I consider your behavior trollish and your characterizations - at their very best - tainted by self-interest. We have nothing to say to one another. If you choose to see my enforcing good edits over poor ones as disruptive, then that is solely your problem. I have asked you to not address me anymore at least twice. You might recall this request, as it is one you made of me. Learn. I do not want to you or deal with your edits anymore. Please show some maturity, stop being disruptive and go away.

The evidence for your incessant edit warring is in the edit history and in the talk archive, and on this talk page. Diffs can be provided to anyone. You were edit warring with other editors before I was actively contributing, so you can't blame me for your continued, disruptive behavior. —Viriditas | Talk 19:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't specify that you didn't need to write to me anymore. Since you have nothing more to say to me that I wan to hear, do not write to me, address me, or communicate with me in any way. Your contributions to the edit warring and your uncivility are also a matter on the archive, as are your 3RR violations. Take the hint. Stop talking to me, or I will report you. I think we are done here.Arcayne 19:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

María, an expert editor, has just informed me as to your new rash of disruptive behavior on the temp page, and she has said she is leaving. Arcayne, it's time your disruptive behavior found a different outlet. You are really just a troll. When you push an expert like María away from this page, there is something seriously wrong. I'm going to ask an admin to analyze this situation more closely and consider sanctioning you for your disruptive and attention-seeking behavior, which is making it impossible to improve this article. It's time for you to move on to something else. —Viriditas | Talk 20:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be anything like why Erik left. I am not seeking attention. I amnot trying to WP:OWN the article. I am not pushing anyone away. I have asked you numerous times to not talk to me, post to me, address me inany fashion. the fact that you continue to do so rather paints you in the role of troll. I have already asked an admin to step in a few days ago, as your behavior is uncivil, trollish, and borders on stalking.

It is time for you to step back and disengage. perhaps you need an admin to enforce that suggestion. Do not talk to me again. You have nothing to say that I want to hear.Arcayne 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Erik left because of this nonsense. You don't understand how collaborative editing works. This is not your personal talk page to discuss your personal interpretations of policy, the film, and whatever else is on your mind. WP:HA is when you use my talk page to post impolite, intimidating trolls, after being asked many times not to do so. I haven't had any issues collaborating with Erik on this page, so his reasons for leaving have nothing to do with me. Please leave your issues at the door and use this page to discuss the article. Your response above did not fix the erroneous quote you added to th article, did not provide sources for your addition of words and qualifiers that don't appear in the source, and failed to support your claims about critical reception and thematic structure. This has been explained to you many, many times, just as other editors have repeatedly had to explain things to you. This type of disruptive behavior is usually defined as "trolling", because it distracts editors from the tasks at hand. You've been trying to push your pet theories for months, and it's time to stop. If you can't address these outstanding issues, then please don't use this talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What part of please don't talk to me was somehow unclear to you? I don't care if you take a break or a nap or whatever - Do. Not. Talk. To. Me. Again. I've now asked you five times. For someone asking me to stop being a trollish harasser, you are certainly providing a fine example of what one looks like. Just stop. I am not going away. Find some way to live with it.Arcayne 03:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not your talk page. And, your attitude is not conducive to working with others. I read what you wrote on Maria's talk page, and I think you need to review WP:NOT. This is not a discussion forum to discuss or rationally evaluate opinions and pet theories. Do not use it as such. There are several outstanding tasks on the temp page waiting for contributions, such as expanding the cast and critical reception sections. I would like to see you do some actual work, instead of stealing what others have written and distorting it to promote OR. Let's see you do some actual research and composition that doesn't involve thievery from other editors. Oh, and stay away from the lead until you can recite WP:LEAD from memory. —Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like that will happen. I can, do and will work with others to put it and other articles together; I will not work with you. I don't care what you do; I will be pointedly ignoring you. I believe this gives you the opportunity to have the last word you so dearly crave. Enjoy it, as I will edit as my conscience and my experience dictates, irregardless of your uncivil, childish behavior.

Now go on and have your last word, Viriditas. Like it is going to make any difference at all. I am done with you.Arcayne 04:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but what does asking you to contribute to the article have to do with working with me? There are a dozen open tasks on the temp page waiting for you to share your genius with the world and show everyone how much work you've done to improve this article. Why are you wasting time talking to me? —Viriditas | Talk 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes Between 2006 and 2027

Moved unsourced trivia to Talk:Children of Men/Temp. Some items already appear sourced in the production and theme sections. —Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Music in the film

I would like to see the Theme's and Music headings in this section ammended to note that John Taverner's work is USED in the film, rather than a soundtrack COMPOSED FOR the film. There is an important difference. Eternity's Sunrise was composed and indeed performed some time before this film was made. I have no connection with the composer, simply a love of his work and a desire to see it represented correctly.

Dr. L. Higgs 24/2/2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.37.137 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Read a little bit more carefully. "Fragments of a Prayer" was composed for the film, and Taverner scored the rest with previous compositions and the addition of three non-Taverner pieces. —Viriditas | Talk 02:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)