Talk:Children of Men/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Surely Ashitey (the actress herself) was in fact pregnant at the time of film's shooting?

(CGI technology is good, but I don't think it's that good yet.)

If this is so, it would seem to be yet another breakthrough for the movie. Can't remember a similar performance, can anyone else? Perhaps, if we find a source, this aspect deserves mention in the article? BYT 13:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I submit that the CGI is somewhat better than we imagine. Remember that the newborn infant was almost entirely a CGI product (see the Production section for details). I don't think Ms. Ashitey was in fact preggers during the film.Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

<Stunned.> That is extraordinary. I figured the childbirth scene had to be CGI, but the scene in the barn ... my goodness, those computers are good. BYT 13:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity Today

The Christianity Today source [1] says, "It's unmistakable—that baby is the hope for humankind's redemption." Now, a picture caption in the same article reads, "Clare-Hope Ashitey as the pregnant Kee, the planet's last hope". We don't quote picture captions in a POV source in the lead section, nor do we use POV sources in a dispute. We rely upon the most authoritative, accurate, and current sources. Since this in dispute, it should not be used. This has been previously discussed in the archives. Please stop quoting a picture caption that merely summarizes the fact that the baby represents the last hope and stick to reliable film reviews like Film Comment and others. Furthermore, the change of "The theme of infertility expands as a metaphor for an increasing loss of hope for humanity" to "The theme of infertility expands as a metaphor for anwith Kee representing humanity's last hope, and her baby representing a renewed hope for the future and redemption for humanity" introduces grammatical errors, cites a picture caption instead of the source text, and introduces original research. The original source (Hollywood Elsewhere]) sources the statement to the director himself ("Because if I did that, a lot of the movie would then have to be about that. For me, female infertility was basically a metaphor for the fading sense of hope") whereas your change introduces original research that is not supported by the source. Please read the actual sources you are citing and pay closer attention to what the text actually says, including the WP:OR policy. Your contention that this is "accurate and cited" [2] is false. —Viriditas | [[User talk:Viriditas|Talk] 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the introdcution of 'pet theories' isn't appropriate here. You evaluate one or two sources to be superior to all the others. I disagree. You should feel free to take this matter to an RfC, as this appears to be one (of many) insoluble differences of opinion which we have.
We do not give strength to one specific source simply because you read somewhere that he is some nifty reviewer. We have at least ten other sources that clearly state the Kee is the last hope for humanity. Perhaps you might wish to review those, which also happen to be int he archives. Neiher the HP or baby have as many specifically-identified sources saying such. To contend otherwise is just original research. Thanks. Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please address my comments. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I rather think I did. Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you avoided addressing my comments entirely. The sources you provide do not meet the requirement for authoritativeness and accuracy. I have explained this to you several times. Your sources also contradict themselves. Since there is a dispute, the compromise is to leave this out of the lead section. I am ready and willing to discuss this further with you, but you will need to directly address my comments above. —Viriditas | Talk 06:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everyman

I noticed in the cast section that Theo is described as an Everyman. I am not unaware of the connection, but is there a cited source within the article that addresses this. It cannot stay unless sourced Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, you have been aware of the connection since at least 14:00, 1 May 2007, according to the talk archives, and the connection has been directly sourced to the Sacramento Bee since its inclusion, and multiple sources can be found through google and a periodical search. So you are both aware of the connection as established by the talk archive and the source. See also WP:EW,WP:DISRUPT, WP:TEND. —Viriditas | Talk 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For the record ...

I personally agree with this edit[3]. For one thing, the material is unsourced, and for my part (as I mentioned elsewhere) I think the film has a great deal more skepticism about Fish motives than it does about those of Muslims. (BTW, unless my memory is going, no Fishes take part in the "Allahu Akbar" march, which would seem to undercut the idea that that march marks the beginning of the Uprising Luke has been attempting to instigate.) BYT 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I will check the edit history to see who keeps adding it. I have removed it several times. —Viriditas | Talk 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot size

I've reduced the plot size to 770 words. —Viriditas | Talk 07:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew nothing about the word limit, so obviously that is not an issue. I was just too damn longwinded.
Re: the sound of the children laughing, it seems like it is perhaps worth additional discussion. If I stumbled in and made the change, other editors seem likely to as well. Question is -- why would we do that? My feeling: It is clearly a narrative element of the film, as we in the audience are meant to take away the possibility that infertility is not the fate of humanity. This is, of course, a major question of the plot. BYT 11:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It's been discussed extensively in the archives. Please visit the links above. The "sound of children laughing" is not part of the narrative. I'm wondering where you got that idea. Did you see it on a website, like IMDB? You added, "As the screen cuts to black and the film's credits appear, we hear the laughter of small children." Apparently, someone spammed that statement to dozens of websites, starting an internet rumor that sparked a number of discussions on various blogs. When you actually look into it, there's nothing there, just a rumor. I've reviewed close to 100 reliable, published and electronic sources. Not a single authoritative, accurate, and current source describes the sound of children laughing in the credits as part of the narrative or the plot. What makes you think that "we in the audience are meant to take away the possibility that infertility is not the fate of humanity?" Please support that statement with a good citation. The problem is, there are none, only dozens of internet discussions sparked by a spammer. The sounds of children laughing in the credits can mean many things. For example, we are reminded of the absence of children's voices in the film, and its presence in the credits serves as a reminder. "Wandering the ruined halls of an abandoned school, Miriam observes that it's " ...Very odd, what happens in a world without children's voices. ..."[4] The director himself has said, ""We wanted the end to be a glimpse of a possibility of hope, for the audience to invest their own sense of hope into that ending. So if you're a hopeful person you'll see a lot of hope, and if you're a bleak person you'll see a complete hopelessness at the end." The sound of children laughing in the credits is never mentioned by anyone who has worked on the film. It's an intellectual teaser, but is not a part of the plot or the narrative. Unfortunately, we can only deal in facts, not speculation. Take a look at the discussions in the archives. My guess is that you ran across this bit of speculation because it was spammed all over the internet, and if other editors are likely to come into contact with it, then we need to put a hidden warning in the plot text, explaining that this is an internet rumor, and that the meaning of the children laughing in the credits is not directly linked to the plot or the narrative. Now, looking into this further, one wonders if an argument for style, theme, or sound can be made. For example, a blogger named Grishny puts this in terms of visual and sound effects, not plot:
"One interesting use of sound I noticed was how the movie opens and closes. If I’m remembering it correctly, it began with a black screen and the sound of children laughing and playing. The sound slowly fades to silence and the title pops up, and then we’re introduced to this world with no children. As the movie ends, the first baby in eighteen years has been born and is on her way to safety and the black screen returns, and slowly the sounds of the children playing fades back in, along with the film title again, and then the credits role." [5]
I'm not sure how accurate Grishny is on this subject, but even so, we don't have reliable film criticism describing these effects, and we can't cite unknown bloggers. Furthermore, we don't include visual and sound effects in plot or a synopsis. The blogger compares the visual and sound effects to the use of candles in Schindler's List, but you'll notice in that article, it is not a part of the plot section, however it is mentioned very briefly in the context of production, but it is unsourced like most of the article. If you are interested, do some more research and see what you can find, but keep in mind this is original research without good sources. —Viriditas | Talk 12:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the laughter of children at the end of the film is part of the narrative, and not some audio glitch or whatnot, as some editors have mistakenly interpreted it in the past. As part of the narrative, it doesn't need citation. No one has noted in a citation various other plot points, so this one doesn't need it, either. Perhaps there is a particular ediotr who somehow missed the laughter at the end. It's possible they got up and left early, or whatever. That said, tthere are now at least 4 other editors (two of which were chased away by the disagreeable place this page had become in the past) who noted the laughter as a notable component of the film. It would seem to me that arguing against inclusion brings up WP:OWN issues. We appreaciat ethe efforts of all our editors, but no editors owns or has expertise over an article simply because they have put some time into it. Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It is your interpretation that the sound of laughing children is part of the narrative. Per WP:CITE, any contested material requires citation, film articles are no exceptions. And film style guidelines recommend describing " the basic premise of the film in a couple of sentences" and "a more comprehensive plot summary." We don't include visual and audio effects that are not directly connected with the plot. There are six editors (including myself) who do not see these video and audio effects as part of the plot. Don't get me wrong: I want to believe, but there's a big difference between what I want and what is. Neither the director, nor the writers, nor any reliable film critics have described these things as part of the plot. —Viriditas | Talk 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have to agree with you here. There is only one mention of it at all, and it is only alluded to. (shaking fist at sky) Damn you, inscrutable secret laws of film reviewers! Because it is in contention, a plot point cannot be included. I do disagree that it is some audio glitch, and when some chuckleheaded reviewer gets around to say it, I will include it at that time. Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Re Viridtas's note to me: You added, "As the screen cuts to black and the film's credits appear, we hear the laughter of small children." <followed by unappreciated suggestion that BYT pinched this>
  • Okay. Here's the deal. I wrote this myself, so if it shows up on lots of other web sites, it may be because it's simply the most common and (if I may) obvious way of describing what happens at the end of the film. No foul, sorry. <Postscript: [6]>
  • Now, saying the sound of the kids has no narrative function is a little like saying that the revelation of what "Rosebud" is at the end of Citizen Kane has no narrative function. Nobody has any dialogue about the name of the sled; no one except the viewer "discovers" this information. But it's quite obviously a major part of what the filmmaker intended to say. Who on earth would leave it out of a summary? Do you really mean to say that referencing it would constitute original rearch?
  • It's an observable part of the film, whether or not there's a citation.
  • I do respect your opinion on this, V, and I ask you to respect mine.
  • Now, our disagreement about all of that, which I will call, for the sake of convenience, Item A, is the surface component of what perhaps needs to be discussed next here. Another, deeper, issue, apparently has to do with a long-running two-player personality flareup game, in perpetual search of topic fuel. (This game, as far as I can make out, is of the "Duck season!" "Rabbit season!" variety). I'm going to call that bit Item B.
  • I have no interest in getting involved in Item B, except to promise both of you that I have not the slightest sense of anyone's agenda here, and will not be swayed by personalities or past grudges when it comes to improving this article, which is important.
  • Now, if we can stick to Item A, and fast-forward past Item B, I'd like to ask for input from other recent editors who have held that referencing the sound of the children at the end of the plot summary is inappropriate. I'll check the archives as well, but if no one shows up here with a strong opinion that we should exclude mention of what is, after all, the film's conclusion, I think we should find a way to reference it. BYT 16:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you found fault with my query about where you had seen this bit of information. It is not the most common and obvious way of describing what happens at the end of the film. As I said before, someone spammed this across the internet. No reliable sources use this to describe the conclusion. Again, what makes you think that "we in the audience are meant to take away the possibility that infertility is not the fate of humanity." Please support that statement with a good citation. This is not like Rosebud in Citizen Kane. Indeed, that is a part of the film. This is not, however. You and others are interpreting the sound in the credits to mean that we "are meant to take away the possibility that infertility is not the fate of humanity"? There is no evidence that is true. All I ask is that we quote the director, the writers, or a reliable film critic on this matter, and then include it in the appropriate section. It is not, however, "an observable part of the film". We don't "observe" the children laughing in the credits. We hear it, and it is after the film has ended. Interpreting that as part of the plot is original research. This is very simple. Provide good references for including this information in the article (personally I believe that it should be in themes, soundtrack, and possibly other places, but my personal beliefs are separate from reality) and I will join you and Arcayne in arguing for its inclusion. I will support the automatic inclusion of this information in the article (plot section would require the reveiwer to put it in that context, as opposed to sound effects, theme) if it can be found in any of these publications that are deemed reliable and notable. Please note, that some of these entries may not be acceptable depending on their current status. Some editors may have added inappropriate publications to that list. —Viriditas | Talk 21:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, if the laughing during the end credits is mentioned, shouldn't the laughing at the beginning be included as well? Also, since it's audio, couldn't the music played during the end-credits then be mentioned in the synopsis, too (its mood, lyrics, intent, etc.)? It seems that those that wish to include reference to the laughing have attached some story-significance to it. I did (that of hope), but I recognize it's my interpretation, and acknowledge it could be no more than a reinforcement of the movie's topic (children), especially since it appears at both the beginning and end (if hope is the intent, why at the beginning when the focus is on despair?). I can find no reputable reviewer's mention of the laughing anywhere, so I'm hard-pressed to think it should be included in the synopsis. Even then, since it is SO open to interpretation, I'd be inclined to restrict it to the Themes section if a source could be found. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Jim, those would be fair considerations, were they accurate. To begin with, there is no children's laughter at the beginning of the movie (or anywhere else in the film, for that matter). You may recall that the fil opens with the Bristish nescaster discussing 'day 100 of the Siege of Seattle'. Secondly, the laughter is not a part of the soundtrack (it is neither listed as such in either the credits, is not part of any song listed in the credits, nor does it appear in the released soundtrack for the film). It is in fact notable that the laughter begins immediately before the screen fades to black, and continues through the credits and end title music, and stops immediately before the words "Shantih, shantih shantih" appear on the screen. Whereas the 'shantih' has been in the past effectively argued as a thematic component, this laughter doesn't appear to serve that same sort of purpose. The suggestion that - as another editor has suggested here - the infertility crisis is averted since Kee (and her baby) have made it to the rendezvous with the Human Project (justifying Theo's sacrifice) is a valid point; there is no other instance of children's laughter in the film. It only appears at the end of the film, when we are left wondering if humanity dies out or not. It's presence hints that man's extinction doesn't happen. However, never let it be said that I am unreasonable; please tell me why you think it is a thematic component. At least you aren't suggesting that the laughter was just some odd little happenstance that a bored film editor accidentally dropped in.
Lastly, I think the only reason reviewers haven't mentioned the laughter at the end is because it is so clearly a spoiler. I think one would be equally hard-pressed to find a reputable reviewer who revealed the surprise endings of Sixth Sense or Usual Suspects. Following your wisdom, we could not detail the identity of Keyser Soze or Dr. Crowe's true nature because we couldn't find a reviewer who told us it was such. However, such are includable because they are a part of the, story - the film experience. The same is true for the laughter. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Whoa! I apologize if I touched a nerve. Certainly not my intent. I stopped reading after 10 words once I saw the tone. Have fun. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Jim, you have some point in mentioning it. This is called debate/discussion. I think it stays such so long as folks remain civil, and if you think I was uncivil in poitning out an inaccuracy in your statement, I do apologize. I happen to disagree with the idea that we should completely ignore the laughter because it doesn't seem to fit a preconceived notion of what some feel the film is suppoed to be. Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, you've offered this argument many times, and User:A Man In Black refuted it on March 11.[7]. Quoting him: "I can find lots of sources that say Bruce Willis's character is a ghost, or that Rathe is Moriarity. Please come up with some sources backing up your interpretation, or please desist edit warring to force it into the article." —Viriditas | Talk 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, pardon me, but I was explaining why the other editor's point of view had merit. Perhaps you are confusing edit-warring with dissent. However, I am not going to get pulled into what has been described as 'Item B' behavior, as our time is better spent bettering the article. I do thank you for pointing out the link wherein it ws mentioned that 4 other editors suggested recommended for the inclusion of the laughter instance. Man in Black, while a fine editor and admin is hardly neutral in the matter. And I submit that you cannot find any sources written within 6 months of any of the aforementioned films' release wherein they gave away the spoiler. But please, go ahead and try. Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I will say, on the question of laughing children and criticism of the film, that when the DVD has extensive interviews with people like Slavoj Zizek, one of the most prominant literary and media critics in the world, scraping by with unsourced material about the inferences of laughing children seems silly to say the least. There's lots and lots of sources to write a really good account of criticism and interpretation of this film - more than any film I've seen it moved rapidly to the point of having excellent secondary sources. Why on Earth are we writing original research like this? Phil Sandifer 00:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Phil, pardon me for asking the obvious, but are you suggesting that the laughter of the children at the end of the film didn't happen? I think it's a fair question, because there seems to be this idea that it should be ignored like some wacky glitch that an errant editor slipped in by accident. Dude, why all the interest in not mentioning it?
And to be fair, I usually get a bit nervous when critics get hyped by one editor or another. Zisek is primarily a philosopher - a quotable philosopher, of course - but I think that peacocking the fellow's credentials simply muddies the waters. I agree that there are excellent sources for the film, and that it would be spiffy if reviewers had given away the ending. However, they didn't. Since it is an observable part of the film (observable meaning part of the film story), it would seem counter-intuitive to not mention it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine, but what's the significance of it? It's not, by any useful definition, part of the narrative of the film - there's no useful explanation for why there would be children laughing at that moment. It's clearly non-diegetic. So unless you've got a credible and reliable source that actually interprets that event, it's not really encyclopedic - it's just trivia. Phil Sandifer 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, there is no consensus to add this to summary. I don't think we will find a reviewer who will reveal this information (it feels like the ending of the film), so until we do, or until an academic type makes mention of it, I will leave this alone. Peace, BYT 15:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
As will I. The moment someone makes a citable reference to it, it's back in. Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
We still have to evaluate sources for reliability, including authority and accuracy (This is a fairly recent film, so it's not necessary to evaluate for currency). Is the article published by a reputable publisher? What about peer review? The credentials of the author are also important (as BYT infers). In any case, I went ahead and watched the film again (fifth time), turned on CC, and played back the ending several times and waded through the credits twice. Having read close to 100 articles on the subject, I am convinced that the sound of children laughing in the credits is pure metaphor. This similarity begins at ~15:29, when Theo initially refuses to help Julian get transit papers. Julian sarcastically comments about Theo's hearing, which was damaged from a terrorist bombing. She tells him, "You know that ringing in your ears? That... (IMITATING RINGING) That's the sound of the ear cells dying. Like their swan song. Once it's gone, you'll never hear that frequency again. Enjoy it while it lasts." It is interesting to see this in light of later comments made at ~1:02:53, when Miriam is in the abandoned school and turns to Theo and says, "Very odd what happens in a world without children's voices." So in at least two separate instances (there may be more), we have a reference to a loss of hearing. The former is physical, whereas the latter is spiritual (hope). James Rocchi of Cinematical notes that the film shows us, "...a world where the presence of a child is so important that it can end battles because that child must not be hurt. And you imagine if every war were like that -- in Iraq, in Chechnya, in Dafur, in our own communities -- and you weep because you know that they are not. Wandering the ruined halls of an abandoned school, Miriam observes that it's '...Very odd, what happens in a world without children's voices.'" Rocchi concludes: "We have the sound of children's voices, but do we truly hear them right here and now?" [8] This is the world of metaphor, not plot. The sound of children laughing in the credits reminds us to listen closely, here and now; it exists in the credits as a commentary on the contemporary state of this world, not the world of the film. —Viriditas | Talk 23:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, i disagree (mightily) with your interpretation, but it's a moot point. It can't be in until a reference noting it is found. I've read just as many reviews and articles as you have on the film, and while Ipersonally think it's stupid to ignore it, I can see the value of having a reference for it. Btw, it isn't solely in the credits; it begins before the credits begin to roll, and continues sporadically during them, ending immediately before the Shantih. Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
My interpretation is based on good, solid evidence, which I will happily provide. As far as I am aware, there is neither good nor solid evidence for the claim that the sound of children laughing in the credits is connected to the plot or the conclusion of the story. From what I can tell, that rumor began as an internet meme and was never substantiated. On what rational basis do you "disagree mightily"? —Viriditas | Talk 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast section

Original research as been added to a fully sourced cast section. There are no sources that support the statement, "The book's plot used Julian, Theo's estranged wife, as the last hope for human fertility" nor is it accurate since the characters were completely changed. Did you read the book? Theo's ex-wife in the book is not pregnant. Julian's entry has been changed to read "has, apparently, gotten the rank and file to stop bombing civilians", which is an editors interpretation of the film. We want to avoid unsupported statements and stick the sources. Regarding Luke, it was changed to say he plays "the driver of the car during the first leg of Kee's perilous journey out of London, and, eventually, the man chosen to succeed Julian". While we could infer and interpret that from the film, we need to stick to sources. This becomes more serious when sourced statements are removed: "The role of Jasper was a change for Caine as it was the first time he ever portrayed a character who would pass gas or smoke cannabis". This attributed to the director per the citation. The edit summary for its removal said, "This sounds like a joke, presumably from Caine. If it's from him, it belongs in the article, but it needs a citation. If it's from someone else, I'm not sure why it's here." It's sourced directly to to the Moviehole citation. The quote from the director of the film appears in many different sources. The entire article is sourced, with references appearing at the end of paragraphs in most cases. Finally, unsourced content has been added in place of the sourced content: "Caine wears the "granny glasses" that Lennon made iconic in the late 1960s; an obscure alternate take of Lennon's anti-authoritarian song Freeda People" and " plays in Jasper's apartment" without sources...Lennon was shot and killed by a man named Mark; in the film, Jasper is shot and killed by a man named Luke, a name that may well be a both a Gospel reference and a commentary on the dynamics of fanaticism". In the future, please try to avoid removing cited sections without discussing them on talk first, and please don't add OR. —Viriditas | Talk 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of content

Reasonable minds may disagree on what constitutes OR, but this diff [9] casually erases work I did that identified:

  • The filmmaker's choice to make several references to John Lennon. (This is an objective fact. It does make these references. Jasper's line "Lennon and McCartney." The use of a John Lennon song in the main section of the film. The use of a John Lennon song in the end credits.)
  • The name of the John Lennon song we hear in Theo's house. (An objective fact. This song does in fact appear in this scene, and it is in fact called Bring on the Lucie (Freeda People). )
  • A link to the lyrics of the song.
  • A wikilink to the WP entry for the song. (By the way, I fixed a typo in that article's name so we could feature the link accurately here.)
  • The existence of Slavoj Zizek's discussion, in a commentary featured on the DVD, of the absence of sex scenes in Children of Men and of the rarity of this choice in a studio film. (An objective fact. This is in fact a feature of the DVD, and he does discuss these topics.)
  • Theo's gambling. (This is an objective fact. We see him gambling.)
  • Luke's status as the driver of the car that takes Kee on the first leg of her perilous journey out of London. (An objective fact. Luke is in fact the only person who drives the car during this scene, and the journey is manifestly perilous.)
  • Luke's ascension to the leadership of the Fishes. (An objective fact, and a relevant description of the action of the character the actor plays.)
  • Kee's fearfulness. (An objective fact. In the barn scene, she tells Theo that she is scared.)
  • The detail, missing in previous edits, that the recent single-origin hypothesis connects to human evolution. (An objective fact. It does.)

There are probably more objective facts you've wiped clean here. I was hoping you and I would build up a rhythm here, because the article is quite important, and you've obviously put a lot of time and energy into it. Instead of discussing the points you felt constituted OR, you eradicated all the work I did on the article this morning. It's not the first time you've done this.

I'm tired of it. Please consult WP:OWN. I'm not going to work on this again until I'm convinced you are interested in working collaboratively. BYT 01:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem. If I wiped out edits you made that already have references in the article please restore them. If on the other hand, I removed content that you added without references, please add sources. Problem solved, amigo? Please refer to this diff to see what I removed and what I added. If you disagree with my edit, please explain. Unsourced interpretations of the film will be removed on sight. I restored "human origins" at your request as that was an accurate description supported by both the external citation and the internal wikilink.[10] You should be able to find a source for the "granny glasses" observation. I believe I saw it somewhere. While I personally agree with the rest of your edits, they are subjective interpretations of the film and require good sources. I will help you find some, but I suggest doing some research. This also brings up the subject of using the film as a primary source. I would personally support doing so in accordance with existing policies; basically this means quotes only, in coordination with secondary sources describing the quotes/scene. However, I would suggest consulting the film project or citation talk pages on this matter as this can be very problematic. There are good secondary sources that describe the features, but to quote them extensively, we will have to use the film as a primary source. I would support you in doing this, but we need to be very careful. —Viriditas | Talk 04:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, Viriditas, you need to step back away from the article for a little while. You've now had three different editors, at three different times, considering the possibility that you are too personally invested in this article (WP:OWN) to be effective at this time. As you have aggregiously violated 3RR in the article yet again, I think you can either voluntarily take this break, or have it enforced upon you. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. If you can document a 3RR violation, Arcayne, my feeling is we should simply report that ASAP. Clearly, I wasn't paying attention. BYT 13:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no 3RR violation, so there is nothing to document. —Viriditas | Talk 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems to me a tricky issue. Yes, many of the things listed are clearly checkable objective facts. But I question, in some cases, whether those facts are encyclopedic. Their arrangement suggests a larger critical significance that is not currently supported by secondary sources. Again - excellent sources of criticism for this film exist. There's no reason we should be stitching together our own here. Look at the Zizek commentary, look at the reviews by major critics, and put together an article that summarizes those aspects. The material being removed, all considerations of accuracy aside, just isn't as good as material should be for this film.
On the other hand, I cannot abide removing any of the Zizek references - those are highly encyclopedic, and should absolutely remain. Perhaps walking away from the edit war on all sides is in order? Phil Sandifer 13:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Edit war means "back and forth" -- that's exactly what I'm refusing to do. We should discuss these issues constructively. So believe me, I don't want an edit war. I do think it's fair to tackle these one at a time, though. Is there any real reason we should avoid identifying the Lennon song playing in Theo's home? And now, alas, there's another issue. A 3RR violation is deeply troubling by an editor taking a lead role in article development. My question: Did it occur? Viriditas -- comments? BYT 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

True, BYT has not engaged in any edit warring on this article. I would very much like to identify the Lennon song playing in Theo's home, BYT, but unless we have secondary sources for it, it becomes problematic. If we are talking about a quote from an actor or actress that is referred to in secondary sources, then I feel (although I could be wrong on this) that it is acceptable to cite the film as a primary source (per citation guidelines for films) as long as secondary sources refer to this quote either indirectly, and/or in an important context that establishes the use of the material as important, and not truth. A good example is the discussion between faith and chance, which should appear in the article. There has not been a 3RR violation, so I have no idea what Arcayne is talking about. —Viriditas | Talk 00:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not the point, Phil; 3RR doesn't allow for three reverts except in the case of vandalism. As well, there isn't an edit-war going on here. I would submit that this is a larger pattern of article ownership extending back since the film's release. A closer look at the edit statistics indicate that the editor in question has made an overwhelming number of edits. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but when you factor in that a substantial number of those edits are reverts or protracted edit-warring and uncivil commentary that have made at least three editors independently suggest issues of ownership, it's time for the editor in question to step back for a bit.
It should be pointed out that BYT wasn't edit-warring. At all. He ws offering edits that, in eddect, altered the article's thrust away from that which the editor in question had labored to create (and by labored, I mean that the editor continually suggested that they had read over a hundred reviews and knew what he was talking about, unlike others). BYT didn't revert the editor's edits; he sought a consensus using the flow model, and was deflected each time. He was on the money here; the other editor was not, and has not been for some time.
Lastly, while the Zisek comments are important, and should not be replaced, any reference that can be replaced with a better or more consistent source should be utilized. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If there's been a 3RR violation, it should be dealt with. As for the rest, to my mind, there is a good reason not to identify the song, which is that it seems like trivia at the moment. Many movies have a large number of popular songs that get used at one point or another. Unless there's a compelling justification from a secondary source for such material's relevance to discussing the film as a whole, I'm very skeptical of its merits, simply because the article would get out of control if all such trivia were added. Phil Sandifer 14:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I think the issue goes a bit deeper than a simple 3RR violation; there is an unhealthy personal investment by the editor in this particular article, and beign reported for 3RR is unlikley to resolve the issue. And while I agree that some of the material being added can be considered trivial in itself, you and I both know that trivia can be (and usually is) wikified into prose and utilized most effectively. It is better to use the raw materials rather than simply revert the newbie's contributions discouraging them from future contributions. As these edits seem intent on preserving a specific interpretation/view of the article, that would appear that more Good Faith is called for. Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in my experience, on popular culture articles trivia tends to just accumulate until somebody blows it all up. As for the 3RR/edit warring, I'm going to stay out of that one. If you think dispute resolution is in order, go for it, but it's not my issue. Phil Sandifer 15:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Phil, I would like to take your constructive criticism to heart, and get started on representing the DVD features. You've written, "There's lots and lots of sources to write a really good account of criticism and interpretation of this film - more than any film I've seen it moved rapidly to the point of having excellent secondary sources." With that said, I would like to ask other editors to help out. And Phil, could you recommend a basic structure for this material? Should it just be a part of the DVD section, or should we create a new section? Some of Zisek's comments can be added to themes, too. And back to my question about primary sources: as far as I understand and interpret the citation policy regarding the use of primary sources, we can quote the film (using the CC feature) as a primary source as long as it is a direct quote and as long as there is a good, reliable source that puts the information or source in the appropriate context. That's my reading of the policy, but it seems to be very tricky, which is why most (if not all) good film articles rely on secondary sources. So, what I'm saying is, we find good secondary sources about Zisek et al. in the film, but if necessary, we can also quote Zisek et al. directly from the film as long as the secondary sources refer to that context. Of course, this could be a violation of existing citation policies, which is why I am asking this question. In the meantime, I'll stick to secondary sources, but I bring up the issue of primary sources because BYT in his comments above, has argued that what is "objectively observable" (in other words the film as a primary source) should be allowed. If anyone else wants to comment or add to this, I would welcome their input. If I'm not being clear, let me know and I'll clarify. —Viriditas | Talk 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: So, what I'm saying is, we find good secondary sources about Zisek et al. in the film, but if necessary, we can also quote Zisek et al. directly from the film as long as the secondary sources refer to that context.

This seems to me needlessly restrictive. The interview with him is a secondary source.

Would you please say briefly whether there is any policy preventing us from simply adding a summary of Zisek's comments to a section on criticism and analysis of the film? Not a lecture please, but a brief response to this direct question. Thanks. BYT 10:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The interview is the primary source. A secondary source would be an article about the interview, of which I have a few, but the information is limited, which is why I have raised questions about using primary sources in articles about films. I think we should be able to do it, but unless we stick to direct quotes, it becomes problematic because editors will try and interpret the primary source, which is not allowed. I've asked the film project to weigh in, but so far, no takers. —Viriditas | Talk 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree.
  • Zisek's remarks about the film would be a primary source if either ...
  • a) the interview itself were included within the actual running time of some version of the film Children of Men, or ...
  • b) this article were called DVD: Children of Men.
  • Neither of those being the case, that interview is a secondary source offering commentary on the film Children of Men, and should be referenced as such. BYT 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Primary and secondary sources can change depending on their usage.[11] Since we are talking about developing a section about the DVD interview, we are using the DVD as a primary source. I don't see a problem with using direct quotes from the DVD interview in conjunction with secondary sources describing the material. —Viriditas | Talk 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Primary and secondary sources can change depending on their usage. Secondary source describes same as "both reporting events in the past as well as performing the function of generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and/or evaluation of the events." Just going out on a limb here, but that is, so far as I can make out, exactly what the Zisek piece on the DVD does. Even given the transient nature of physical reality.

I don't much care what label you come up with; this is an article about the film, and that is an analysis of the film. Thus relevant to quote. Agreed? BYT 21:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the link I gave you above. The interview can be used as both a primary and a secondary source. As it is included as an additional feature of the film, and since we want to use it to discuss both Zisek's beliefs and his opinions about the film, it can be considered a primary source; most interviews are primary sources. If you can quote it directly, using the CC feature, I have no objection as long as the context is based on secondary sources. Per WP:NOR: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source....Examples of primary sources include...interviews...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs...An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." —Viriditas | Talk 03:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You write, "As it is included as an additional feature of the film..."
  • Please clarify whether or not the film Children of Men existed on December 25, 2006. No speeches, please, just a simple answer to a direct question. Many thanks. BYT 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We've covered this issue already. If you have a specific question, please ask it. I'm not going to play games. —Viriditas | Talk 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question is this. If a published article that comes out in print after the film's release is a secondary source, why aren't Zisek's comments on the film -- which were also published after the film's release -- also a secondary source? Mind you, I'm not asking any broader question about the nature of secondary-source-ness or primary-source-ness, or about whether labels for things change based on situations encountered. I'm asking, specifically, why comments published after the film's US release (namely, Zisek's) need, in your world, to be given "in conjunction with secondary sources describing the material.' Zisek is a secondary source. So howsabout I quote him in conjunction with himself as he describes the material - not in a new, separate section about the DVD commentary, but in the existing Criticism section? BYT 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed these points already in the above section, and I'm not clear as to why you refer to WP:NOR as "in your world". Both Zizek's six-minute analysis of Cuaron’s filmmaking and Zizek's interview in the 27-minute documentary, The Possibility of Hope can be considered primary sources. In the former, Zizek's anaylsis is a standalone commentary on Cuaron's filmmaking, not just "Children of Men". In the latter, the interview is part of a separate documentary; Both are primary sources in the context of how we are trying to develop a section about Zizek's philosophy, which is based on his primary research. A review of Zizek's anaylsis and the documentary would be a secondary source. Criticism sections in non-documentary film articles are called "reception", sometimes included as subsections of release. Documentaries may have criticism sections (per WP:MOSFILMS if there is controversy) but fictional films tend to use sections such as Themes, Influences, Interpretations, and in some cases, sections entitled Philosophy. So, Zisek isn't criticizing the film, he's commenting on themes and making interpretations based on his ideas of social theory and philosophy. Since we are creating a section that will interpret Zisek's ideas, we need secondary sources per WP:NOR. If you want a specific example of how to do this, I can offer one (or many) for collaboration. —Viriditas | Talk 03:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Re: Both Zizek's six-minute analysis of Cuaron’s filmmaking and Zizek's interview in the 27-minute documentary, can be considered primary sources. They "can be" considered secondary sources, too.

Re: Since we are creating a section that will interpret Zisek's ideas, we need secondary sources per WP:NOR. I disagree that we should create such a section. What I'm proposing is quoting him in the existing criticism section. BYT 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What existing criticism section? As I wrote above, there is no criticism section in this article. There is a critical reception section for film critics, but Zisek is neither a film critic nor providing a critial review of the film. What he is doing, is sharing his primary research: his interpretation of the themes, influences, and philosophy. And in many cases, he doesn't even adderss the film. Instead, he discusses the director, other films, and even society itself. This is not film criticism, and it deserves a place in themes, the DVD section, or in a new section altogether. —Viriditas | Talk 20:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I take strong exception to the above. Why are you so insistent that we filter everything Zisek says through something someone else says? Why, to be specific, should only film critics be quoted? If George W. Bush talked about the film, are you saying we'd have to find a film critic who quoted him in order to include the material? BYT 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection. I have repeatedly defended quoting primary sources in film articles, but any interpretation of that quote requires the context of a secondary source, of which many are available. This is supported by policy. —Viriditas | Talk 21:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. You have yet to make any compelling case that it's required by policy, which is what you seem eager to imply. Any answer to my Bush question, by the way? BYT 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No interpretation needed; it's part of the WP:NOR policy: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source....Examples of primary sources include...interviews...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs...An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." —Viriditas | Talk 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. So clarify for me, please, what's keeping us from making only descriptive claims of what Zisek says, without making analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative comments thereon. You keep making comments that suggest I would also have to cross-reference these with some film commentator, which suggestion I dispute. Or is that not what you mean? BYT 14:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Brandon, I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Please just go ahead and add the material you wish to add. Myself and other editors will help improve it, if it needs it. I have complete faith in your abilities as an editor to do the right thing. —Viriditas | Talk 00:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me put the cards on the table. Your consistent refusal to address basic questions about what you can and can't work with is a clear impediment to WP:CONSENSUS.
  • You don't have to "keep repeating yourself."
  • You just have to tell me whether you really mean to delete material I put in from Zisek if I don't align it with a film critic. That's what you've been implicitly threatening to do for the past week and a half, and your pattern of instantly vaporizing edits with which you disagree (amply evidenced here) leaves me wanting a little less ambiguity from you. Either that or back off the deletion key. BYT 14:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Please don't make accsuations against other editors; please address the article. I explained the policies and explained how we use primary and secondary sources. If the material you add does not adhere to those policies, it will be fixed. Please feel free to edit as you may.—Viriditas | Talk 22:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast section format

"Credits should be written in the "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format" per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines —Viriditas | Talk 02:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luke shoots Theo ?

Is it certain that LUKE is the one who shot Theo? i just saw the DVD and didn't catch that. <unsigned>

Yep. So quick, though, that I really don't think you're supposed to notice it the first time around. Slomo the last few seconds of the scene with Luke in the building under siege. BYT 13:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I wondered about that too after seeing the film the 1st time in a theatre. 2nd time, also in a theatre, I watched carefully & Theo is hit by one of Luke's shots as he runs out of the room after Kee. You have to look quick to see Theo's reaction. Tommyt 15:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I watched Children of Men for the second time last night and also observed that one of Luke's bullets hit Theo as Theo and Kee dashed away. Modul8r 15:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)